Cited by 713Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityDigital Economy and Work TransformationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor

Open access
Frank, Morgan R., Autor, David, Bessen, James E., Brynjolfsson, Erik, Cebrian, Manuel, Deming, David J., Feldman, Maryann, Groh, Matthew +5 more·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technologies have the potential to significantly disrupt labor markets. While AI and automation can augment the productivity of some workers, they can replace the work done by others and will likely transform almost all occupations at least to some degree. Rising automation is happening in a period of growing economic inequality, raising fears of mass technological unemployment and a renewed call for policy efforts to address the consequences of technological change. In this paper we discuss the barriers that inhibit scientists from measuring the effects of AI and automation on the future of work. These barriers include the lack of high-quality data about the nature of work (e.g., the dynamic requirements of occupations), lack of empirically informed models of key microlevel processes (e.g., skill substitution and human–machine complementarity), and insufficient understanding of how cognitive technologies interact with broader economic dynamics and institutional mechanisms (e.g., urban migration and international trade policy). Overcoming these barriers requires improvements in the longitudinal and spatial resolution of data, as well as refinements to data on workplace skills. These improvements will enable multidisciplinary research to quantitatively monitor and predict the complex evolution of work in tandem with technological progress. Finally, given the fundamental uncertainty in predicting technological change, we recommend developing a decision framework that focuses on resilience to unexpected scenarios in addition to general equilibrium behavior.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1900949116

Cites

75 of 75 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?

  • Automation facilitated by large language models may disrupt labor markets, posing challenges to employment and exacerbating income inequality globally.

    “Additionally, the automation facilitated by large language models may disrupt labor markets, posing challenges to employment and exacerbating income inequality globally (Frank et al. 2019).”

    From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Frank et al. 2019

    The Abstract says AI and automation may disrupt labor markets and replace some workers’ work, and it notes concern about employment in advanced and developing economies worldwide. It does not specifically address large language models. It describes automation as occurring amid growing inequality, while “Barrier: Places in Isolation” discusses possible changes in income distribution; neither establishes that this automation would exacerbate income inequality globally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Businesses have implemented and deployed AI solutions to automate processes, increase efficiency and reduce costs, in order to gain competitive advantage.

    “In order to gain a competitive advantage over their competitors (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021), businesses have implemented and deployed AI solutions to automate their processes, increase efficiency and reduce costs (Frank et al., 2019; Gregory et al., 2020).”

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: 3

  1. [9]Yunis H 2011 Plato: Phaedrus Cambridge Univ Press Cambridge, UK
  2. [21]Acemoglu D Autor D 2011 Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings Handbook of Labor Economics Elsevier Amsterdam Vol 4 1043 1171
  3. [60]Ikenaga T 2009 Polarization of the japanese labor market: The adoption of it and changes in tasks contents The Japanese Journal of Labour Studies 584 73 90

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frank, M. R., Autor, D., Bessen, J. E., Brynjolfsson, E., Cebrian, M., Deming, D. J., Feldman, M., Groh, M., Lobo, J., Moro, E., Wang, D., Youn, H., & Rahwan, I.
Affiliations
  • MIT Media Lab (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139;
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
Corresponding author
Rahwan, Iyad
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-03-25
Volume
116
Issue
14
Pages
6531-6539
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2924260403
Cited by
713
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
FWCI
77.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (acceptedVersion)
  • e-Archivo (Carlos III University of Madrid) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1733545)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence, automation, future of work, labor market disruption, technological unemployment, skill substitution, human-machine complementarity, vocational skills, economic inequality, data quality, urban migration, trade policy, decision-making framework

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