CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityEthics and Social Impacts of AIImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society

Forecasting extreme labor displacement: A survey of AI practitioners

Open access
Gruetzemacher, Ross, Paradice, David, Lee, Kang Bok·2020·Technological Forecasting and Social Change
DOI 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120323
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While labor-displacing AI has the potential to transform critical aspects of society in the near future, previous work has ignored the possibility of the extreme labor displacement scenarios that could result. To explore this we surveyed attendees of three AI conferences in 2018 about near-to-mid-term AI labor displacement as well as five more extreme labor-displacing AI scenarios. Practitioners indicated that a median of 22% of tasks which humans are currently paid to do could be automated with existing AI; they anticipate this figure rising to 40% in 5 years and 60% in 10 years. Median forecasts indicated a 50% probability of AI systems being capable of automating 90% of human tasks in 25 years and 99% of human tasks in 50 years. Practitioners surveyed at the different conferences had similar forecasts for AI labor displacement this decade, but attendees of the Human-level AI Conference had significantly shorter and more precise forecasts for the more extreme labor-displacing AI scenarios. Interestingly, median forecasts of a 10% probability of 90% and 99% of human tasks being automated were 10 years and 15 years, respectively. We conclude that future of work researchers should more carefully consider these relatively high likelihoods of extreme labor-displacing AI scenarios.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120323

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • As AI automates tasks traditionally performed by artists and designers, specialised creative roles risk being devalued or reduced to secondary functions.

    “As AI automates tasks traditionally performed by artists and designers, specialised creative roles risk being devalued or reduced to secondary functions (Gruetzemacher et al., 2020).”

    From My Teammate is an AI: Evaluating Generative AI in Game Asset Creation through a Post-GameJam Study (2025) · cites this paper as Gruetzemacher et al., 2020

    The Introduction says the survey concerns automation of human tasks and potential labor displacement, but explicitly says it does not draw conclusions about specific tasks or jobs. The cited paper does not address artists or designers, or say that creative roles would be devalued or reduced to secondary functions. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI's ability to automate creative tasks raises fears about job displacement in fields like graphic design, animation, and game writing.

    “AI's ability to automate creative tasks raises fears about job displacement in fields like graphic design, animation, and game writing (Gruetzemacher et al., 2020).”

    From My Teammate is an AI: Evaluating Generative AI in Game Asset Creation through a Post-GameJam Study (2025) · cites this paper as Gruetzemacher et al., 2020

    The Conclusions report that AI practitioners anticipate substantial labor displacement from AI, supporting the general concern. But the Introduction says the study does not draw granular conclusions about specific tasks or jobs, and the copy does not connect displacement to creative tasks or to graphic design, animation, or game writing (no page numbers supplied). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Aaronson, D., Sullivan, D.G., 1998. The Decline of Job Security in the 1990s: Displacement, anxiety, and Their Effect On Wage Growth 22. Economic Perspectives- Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, pp. 17-43.
  2. Armstrong, S., Sotala, K., 2015. How we're predicting AI-or failing to. Beyond Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp. 11-29.
  3. Aspinall, W., 2010. A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature 463 (7279), 294.
  4. Baker, E., et al., 2010. "Battery technology for electric and hybrid vehicles: expert views about prospects for advancement. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 77 (7), 1139-1146.
  5. Baker, E., Keisler, J.M., 2011. Cellulosic biofuels: expert views on prospects for ad- vancement. J. Energy 36 (1), 595-605.
  6. Baum, S.D., et al., 2011. How long until human-level AI? Results from an expert assess- ment. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 78 (1), 185-195.
  7. Besley, J.C., et al., 2008. Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regula- tion. J. Nanopart. Res. 10 (4), 549-558.
  8. Bresnahan, T.F., Trajtenberg, M., 1995. General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'? J. Econom. 65 (1), 83-108.
  9. Brown, T.B., et al. (2020). "Language models are few-shot learners". arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. · arXiv
  10. Brynjolfsson, E., et al., 2018. What can machines learn, and what does it mean for oc- cupations and the economy. AEA Pap. Proc. 43-47.
  11. Brynjolfsson, E., et al., 2019. Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox. National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 23. Chen, K., Chang, N., 1984. Technology forecast of space robots to the year 2000. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 26 (1), 47-57.
  12. Dafoe, A., 2018. AI Governance: A Research Agenda. Governance of AI Program, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  13. Das, S., et al., 2020. Learning occupational task-shares dynamics for the future of work. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.
  14. De Fauw, J., et al., 2018. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat. Med. 24 (9), 1342-1350.
  15. Devlin, J., et al. (2018). "Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding". arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  16. Drexler, K.E., 2019. Reframing Superintelligence. The Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.
  17. Duckworth, P., et al., 2019. Inferring work task automatability from AI expert evidence. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI for Ethics and Society. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
  18. Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J., 1994. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC press.
  19. Frank, M.R., et al., 2019. Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (14), 6531-6539.
  20. Goertzel, B., Pennachin, C., 2007. Artificial General Intelligence. Springer.
  21. Goodwin and Wright, 2010. Decision Analysis for Management Judgement, 4th. Wiley.
  22. Grace, K., et al., 2018. When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI ex- perts. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 62 (62), 729-754.
  23. Greene, W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall.
  24. Gruetzemacher, R., 2019. A holistic framework for forecasting transformative AI. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 3 (3), 35.
  25. Gruetzemacher, R., Paradice, D., 2019. Toward mapping the paths to AGI. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. Springer.
  26. Gruetzemacher, R. and J. Whittlestone (2019). "Defining and Unpacking Transformative AI". arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00747. · arXiv
  27. Henningsen, A., Hamann, J.D., 2007. systemfit: a package for estimating systems of si- multaneous equations in R. J. Stat. Softw. 23 (4), 1-40.
  28. Hora, S.C., et al., 2013. Median aggregation of distribution functions. Decis. Anal. 10 (4), 279-291.
  29. Hutter, M., 2004. Universal Artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions Based On Algorithmic Probability. Springer Science & Business Media.
  30. Kassie, M., et al., 2013. Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 80 (3), 525-540.
  31. LeCun, Y., et al., 2015. Deep learning. NatureNature 521 (7553), 436.
  32. Lee, M., et al., 2018. How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation" J. Open Innov.: Technol. Mark. Complex. 4 (3), 21.
  33. Lipsey, R.G., et al., 2005. Economic transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth. OUP Oxford.
  34. McKinney, S.M., et al., 2020. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577 (7788), 89-94.
  35. Morgan, M.G., 2014. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (20), 7176-7184.
  36. Motoyama, Y., Eisler, M., 2011. Bibliometry and nanotechnology: a meta-analysis. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 78 (7), 1174-1182.
  37. Müller, V.C., Bostrom, N., 2016. Future progress in artificial intelligence: a survey of expert opinion. Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp. 555-572.
  38. Nakagawa, Y., et al., 2010. Assessment of social implications of nanotechnologies in Japan: application of problem structuring method based on interview surveys and cognitive maps. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 77 (4), 615-638.
  39. Nemet, G.F., et al., 2017. Quantifying the effects of expert selection and elicitation design on experts' confidence in their judgments about future energy technologies. Risk Anal. 37 (2), 315-330.
  40. Nilsson, N., 2005. Human-level artificial intelligence? Be serious!. Ai Ma. 26 (4), 68.
  41. Nordhaus, W.D., 1994. Expert opinion on climatic change. Am. Sci. 82 (1), 45-51.
  42. Omar, M., et al., 2017. Global mapping of artificial intelligence in Google and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 113 (3), 1269-1305.
  43. Rasdorf, W., et al., 2016. Data collection opportunities and challenges for skilled con- struction labor demand forecast modeling. Public Works Manag. Policy 21 (1), 28-52.
  44. Roper, A.T., et al., 2011. Forecasting and Management of Technology, 2nd edition.
  45. Rumberger, R.W., Levin, H.M., 1985. Forecasting the impact of new technologies on the future job market. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change 27 (4), 399-417.
  46. Schwab, Klaus, 2017. The 4th Industrial Revolution. Penguin Random House.
  47. Silver, D., et al., 2016. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529 (7587), 484.
  48. Vaswani, A., et al., 2017. Attention is all you need. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 5998-6008.
  49. Vinyals, O., et al., 2019. Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature 575 (7782), 350-354.
  50. Walsh, T., 2018. Expert and non-expert opinion about technological unemployment. Int. J. Autom. Comput. 15 (5), 637-642.
  51. Wang, A., et al. (2018). "Glue: a multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding". preprint arXiv:1804.07461. · arXiv
  52. Wang, A., et al., 2019. Superglue: a stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 3266-3280.
  53. Wiser, R., et al., 2016. Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs. Nat. Energy 1 (10), 1-8.
  54. Wong, J.M., et al., 2008. Modeling and forecasting construction labor demand: multi- variate analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 134 (9), 664-672.
  55. Yigitcanlar, T., et al., 2019. Disruptive impacts of automated driving systems on the built environment and land use: an urban planner's perspective. J. Open Innov.: Technol. Mark. Complexity 5 (2), 24.
  56. Yun, J.J., et al., 2019. Basic income with high open innovation dynamics: the way to the entrepreneurial state. J. Open Innov.: Technol. Mark. Complex. 5 (3), 41.
  57. Zellers, R., et al. (2020). "Evaluating machines by their real-world language use". arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03607. · arXiv
  58. Zellner, A., 1962. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 57 (298), 348-368.
  59. Zhang, B., Dafoe, A., 2019. Artificial Intelligence: American Attitudes and Trends. The Center for the Governance of AI, The Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.
  60. Zhang, X., et al., 2019. "An effectiveness analysis of altmetrics indices for different levels of artificial intelligence publications. Scientometrics 119 (3), 1311-1344.
  61. Zubaryeva, A., et al., 2012. Assessing factors for the identification of potential lead markets for electrified vehicles in Europe: expert opinion elicitation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (9), 1622-1637.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gruetzemacher, R., Paradice, D., & Lee, K. B.
Affiliations
Auburn University (US)
Corresponding author
Gruetzemacher, Ross
ORCID
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
161
Pages
120323
ISSN
0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120323
OpenAlex
W3090724338
Cited by
105
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Technological Forecasting and Social Change (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Keywords
job displacement, artificial intelligence, task automation, future of work

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review