The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Generate” the Future of Work through AI: Empirical Evidence from Online Labor Markets
Abstract
Large Language Model (LLM)-based generative AI systems are general-purpose tools capable of augmenting or even automating a wide range of job functions, positioning them to reshape labor market dynamics. However, predicting their precise impact a priori is challenging, given AI’s simultaneous effects on both demand and supply, as well as the strategic responses of market participants. Leveraging an extensive dataset from a leading online labor platform, we document a pronounced displacement effect and an overall contraction in submarkets where required skills closely align with core LLM functionalities. Although demand and supply both decline, the reduction in supply is comparatively smaller, thereby intensifying competition among freelancers. Notably, further analysis shows that this heightened competition is especially pronounced in programming-intensive submarkets. This pattern is attributed to skill-transition effects: by lowering the human-capital barrier to programming, ChatGPT enables incumbent freelancers to enter programming tasks. Moreover, these transitions are not homogeneous, with high-skilled freelancers contributing disproportionately to the shift. Our findings illuminate the multifaceted impacts of general-purpose AI on labor markets, highlighting not only the displacement of certain occupations but also the inducement of skill transitions within the labor supply. These insights offer practical implications for policymakers, platform operators, and workers.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence
Oster, E. (2019) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711 · Cited by 5,367
Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.33.2.3 · Cited by 2,612
Artificial Intelligence and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies
Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Hazell, J., & Restrepo, P. (2022) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/718327 · Cited by 1,193
Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI
Morris, M. R., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Fiedel, N., Warkentin, T., Dafoe, A., Faust, A., Farabet, C., & Legg, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.02462 · Cited by 274
Rawte, V., Chakraborty, S., Pathak, A., Sarkar, A., Tonmoy, S. M. T. I., Chadha, A., Sheth, A., & Das, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.155 · Cited by 119
MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Extensible Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation
Cassano, F., Gouwar, J., Nguyen, D., Nguyen, S., Phipps-Costin, L., Pinckney, D., Yee, M.-H., Zi, Y., Anderson, C. J., Feldman, M. Q., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.08227 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., Xu, X., Nan, X., Li, Y., & Tan, Y.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2026-10-23
- ISSN
- 1047-7047
- 1526-5536
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Generate” the Future of Work through AI: Empirical Evidence from Online Labor Markets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.2023.0461
- The paper
- Liu, J., Xu, X., Nan, X., Li, Y., & Tan, Y. (2026). “Generate” the Future of Work through AI: Empirical Evidence from Online Labor Markets. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.0461
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.