CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityDigital Economy and Work TransformationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

AI-exposed jobs deteriorated before ChatGPT

Open access
Frank, Morgan R., Sabet, Alireza Javadian, Simon, Lisa, Bana, Sarah H., Yu, Renzhe·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2601.02554arXiv 2601.02554
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Public debate links worsening job prospects for AI-exposed occupations to the release of ChatGPT in late 2022. Using monthly U.S. unemployment insurance records, we measure occupation- and location-specific unemployment risk and find that risk rose in AI-exposed occupations beginning in early 2022, months before ChatGPT was released. Analyzing millions of LinkedIn profiles, we show that graduate cohorts from 2021 onward entered AI-exposed jobs at lower rates than earlier cohorts, with gaps opening before late 2022. Finally, from millions of university syllabi, we find that graduates taking more LLM-exposed curricula had shorter job searches after ChatGPT and higher first-job pay when entering highly exposed occupations. Together, these results---pointing to forces pre-dating generative AI and to the ongoing value of LLM-relevant education---suggest that generative AI may not be the root cause of these labor market hardships and that the launch of ChatGPT is a faulty natural experiment for understanding AI's impact on jobs.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2601.02554

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?

  • Frank et al. (2026) caution that in U.S. unemployment-insurance records labor-market deterioration in AI-exposed occupations already began in early 2022.

    “Lastly, while Frank, Sabet, Simon, Bana, and Yu (2026) caution that in U.S. unemployment-insurance records labor-market deterioration in AI-exposed occupations already began in early 2022”

    From Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway (2026) · cites this paper as Frank et al., 2026

  • Deterioration in AI-exposed jobs predates the launch of ChatGPT.

    “Frank et al. (2026) emphasize deterioration in AI-exposed jobs that predates the launch of ChatGPT”

    From The Early Impacts of AI on Employment among Recent College Graduates (2026) · cites this paper as Frank et al. 2026

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: 20

  1. Edward W Felten, Manav Raj, and Robert Seamans. Occupational heterogeneity in exposure to generative ai. Available at SSRN 4414065, 2023.
  2. Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs. Science, 384(6702):1306-1308, 2024.
  3. Guy Lichtinger and Seyed Mahdi Hosseini Maasoum. Generative AI as seniority-biased technological change: Evidence from us resume and job posting data. Available at SSRN, 2025.
  4. José Azar, Mireia Gine, and Javier Sanz-Espín. AI Is Already Eroding Wages: Quasi- Experimental Evidence From Occupational Exposure. Available at SSRN 5842084, 2025.
  5. Yoshua Bengio et al. International AI safety report 2026. Technical Report DSIT 2026/001, UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, February 2026. arXiv:2602.21012. · arXiv
  6. Eduard Brüll, Samuel Mäurer, and Davud Rostam-Afschar. Beliefs about bots: How employers plan for AI in white-collar work. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21959, 2025. · arXiv
  7. Jonathan Hartley, Filip Jolevski, Vitor Melo, and Brendan Moore. The labor market effects of generative artificial intelligence. Technical report, SSRN Working Paper 5136877, 2026.
  8. Gregor Zens, Maximilian Böck, and Thomas O Zörner. The heterogeneous impact of monetary policy on the us labor market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 119:103989, 2020.
  9. Alireza Javadian Sabet, Sarah H Bana, Renzhe Yu, and Morgan R Frank. Course-Skill Atlas: A national longitudinal dataset of skills taught in US higher education curricula. Scientific Data, 11(1):1086, 2024.
  10. Edward W Felten, Manav Raj, and Robert Seamans. A Method to Link Advances in Artificial Intelligence to Occupational Abilities. In AEA Papers and Proceedings, volume 108, pages 54-57, 2018.
  11. Jin Wang and Wenxiang Fan. The effect of ChatGPT on students' learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1):1-21, 2025.
  12. Francesco Filippucci, Peter N Gal, and Matthias Schief. Aggregate Productivity Gains from Artificial Intelligence: a Sectoral Perspective. Available at SSRN 5260318, 2025.
  13. Fangyan Wang, Zaiyan Wei, and Yang Wang. Generative AI and the reorganization of labor demand. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23159, 2026. · arXiv
  14. R. Maria del Rio-Chanona, Ekkehard Ernst, Rossana Merola, Daniel Samaan, and Ole Teutloff. AI and jobs: A review of theory, estimates, and evidence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.15265, 2025. · arXiv
  15. Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187-192, 2023.
  16. Sida Peng, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Peter Cihon, and Mert Demirer. The impact of ai on developer productivity: Evidence from github copilot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06590, 2023. · arXiv
  17. Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey R Raymond. Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2):889-942, 2025.
  18. Fabrizio Dell'Acqua, Edward McFowland III, Ethan R Mollick, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Katherine Kellogg, Saran Rajendran, Lisa Krayer, Franc ¸ois Candelon, and Karim R Lakhani. Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Organization Science, 2025. https://doi. org/10.1287/orsc.2025.21838. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Jacob Dominski and Yong Suk Lee. Advancing AI capabilities and evolving labor outcomes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08244, 2025. · arXiv
  20. Jushan Bai and Pierre Perron. Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(1):1-22, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frank, M. R., Sabet, A. J., Simon, L., Bana, S. H., & Yu, R.
Affiliations
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • Columbia University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2601.02554
arXiv
2601.02554
OpenAlex
W7119178440
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Center for Research Computing, University of Pittsburgh
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
ChatGPT, generative AI, unemployment risk, employment prospects, job search duration, higher education curriculum, large language models, unemployment insurance

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