Cited by 1Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityDigital Economy and Work TransformationImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society

AI and the Increase of Productivity and Labor Inequality in Latin America: Potential Impact of Large Language Models on Latin American Workforce

Open access
Azuara Herrera, Oliver, Ripani, Laura, Torres Ramirez, Eric·2024

Abstract

We assess the potential effect of large language models (LLMs) on the labor markets of Chile, Mexico, and Peru using the methodology of Eloundou et al. (2023). This approach involves detailed guidelines (rubrics) for each job to assess whether access to LMM software would reduce the time required for workers to complete their daily tasks. Adapting this methodology to the Latin American context necessitated developing a comprehensive crosswalk between the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and regional occupational classifications, SINCO-2011 and ISCO-2008. When we use this adaptation, the theoretical average task exposure of occupations under these classifications is 32% and 31% for each classification. Recognizing the unique characteristics of each country's labor market, we refined these ratings to reflect better each nation's capacity to adopt and effectively implement new technologies. After these adjustments, the task exposure for SINCO-2011 drops to 27% and for ISCO-2008 to 23%. These adjusted exposure ratings provide a more accurate depiction of the real-world implications of LLM integration in the Latin American context. According to this methodology, the LLM-powered exposure using GPT-4 estimates suggests that the percentage of jobs with task exposure exceeding 10% is 74% in Mexico, 76% in Chile, and 76% in Peru. When we raise the exposure threshold to 40% or more, the proportion of affected occupations significantly decreases to 9% in Mexico, 20% in Chile, and 6% in Peru. The exposure is close to zero after this threshold. In other words, the exposure would only affect less than half of the total labor force in these countries. Further analysis of exposure by socioeconomic conditions indicates higher exposure among women, individuals with higher education, formal employees, and higher-income groups. This suggests a potential increase in labor inequality in the region due to adopting this technology. Our findings highlight the need for targeted policy interventions and adaptive strategies to ensure that the transition to an AI-enhanced labor market benefits all socio-economic groups and minimizes disruptions.

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 · 10.18235/0013152

Cites

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1):7-72.
  2. Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2020). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2):3-30.
  3. Bessen, J. E. (2002). Technology adoption costs and productivity growth: The transition to information technology. Review of Economic Dynamics, 5(2):443-469.
  4. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1877-1901.
  5. Damioli, G., Van Roy, V., Vertesy, D., and Vivarelli, M. (2023). Ai technologies and employment: micro evidence from the supply side. Appl Econ Lett, 30(6):816-821.
  6. Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186.
  7. Duch-Brown, N., Gomez-Herrera, E., Mueller-Langer, F., and Tolan, S. (2022). Market power and artificial intelligence work on online labour markets. Res Policy, 51(3):104446.
  8. Fatun, M. and Pazour, M. (2021). Modelling the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market in czechia. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 15(2):31-42.
  9. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., and Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the penn world table. American Economic Review, 105(10):3150-3182.
  10. George, A. S., George, A. H., and Martin, A. G. (2023). Chatgpt and the future of work: a compre- hensive analysis of ai's impact on jobs and employment. Partners Univ Int Innov J, 1(3):154-186.
  11. Ghosh, D., Ghosh, R., Roy Chowdhury, S., and Ganguly, B. (2024). Ai-exposure and labour market: a systematic literature review on estimations, validations, and perceptions. Management Review Quarterly. Published on 15 January 2024.
  12. Holm, J. and Lorenz, E. (2022). The impact of artificial intelligence on skills at work in denmark. New Technology, Work and Employment, 37(1):79-101.
  13. Iammarino, S., Rodriguez-Pose, A., and Storper, M. (2018). Regional inequality in Europe: evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2):273-298.
  14. Kafka, K. I. (2021). Economic Theory and Economic Reality: A Continuously Dialectic Relationship, chapter 1, pages 1-26. IGI Global.
  15. Liu, N. (2023). Assessing the potential impact of large language models on labor markets and busi- ness cycles in china: A preliminary study. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 18(4):1-12.
  16. Moll, B., Rachel, L., and Restrepo, P. (2022). Uneven growth: Automation's impact on income and wealth inequality. Econometrica, 90(6):2645-2683.
  17. Reinhold, T., Brüggenjürgen, B., Schlander, M., et al. (2010). Economic analysis based on multi- national studies: methods for adapting findings to national contexts. Journal of Public Health, 18:327-335.
  18. Trebat, T. J. (2012). Review of falling behind: Explaining the development gap between latin america and the united states by francis fukuyama. Political Science Quarterly, 127(1):150-152.
  19. Widuckel, W. and Bellmann, L. (2023). Employment effects and changes in work organisation arising from ai. In Work and AI 2030: challenges and strategies for tomorrow's work, pages 195-201. Springer, Wiesbaden.
  20. Zarifhonarvar, A. (2023). Economics of chatgpt: a labor market view on the occupational impact of artificial intelligence. Journal of Electronic Business & Digital Economics. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4350925 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4350925. · DOI
  21. Zhou, G., Chu, G., Li, L., and Meng, L. (2020). The effect of artificial intelligence on china's labor market. China Economic Journal, 13(1):24-41.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Azuara Herrera, O., Ripani, L., & Torres Ramirez, E.
Published
2024-09-11
OpenAlex
W4402468042
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Keywords
large language models, labor productivity, labor market inequality, occupational classification, O*NET, Chile, Mexico, Peru, socioeconomic disparities, artificial intelligence adoption

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