A task-level expertise database for ISCO-08, the international standard that allows for cross-country comparisons, is built and shows that generative AI reaches the tasks that make an occupation expert in some occupational groups but not others.
A growing literature measures how far occupations are exposed to AI, but these measures capture where AI could perform tasks, not whether workers have adopted it. We propose a new layer of exposure, delegated exposure, which records whether a worker has committed a task to AI by building it into a workflow. We operationalize it as the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), which measures how closely an occupation's tasks match the agentic routines practitioners have already built and shared. We embed roughly 53,000 agent skill specifications from the Manus Skills Marketplace, compute their semantic similarity to about 18,000 O*NET task statements, and aggregate to the occupation level. Three findings follow. First, the occupations where delegation concentrates differ sharply from those pre-AI frameworks identified as most at risk. Second, the AAI tracks what AI could do more closely than what workers currently use it for. Third, the AAI peaks below the top of the wage distribution and at the bachelor's level, declining at both extremes. Technical availability explains most of this variation, but not the shortfall among the most educated occupations, so feasibility alone cannot account for who adopts. That shortfall may reflect work that resists advance specification, or professional discretion over the pace of codification. Distinguishing the two, and tracking how these measures diverge over time, will require repeated measurement.
Task knowledge is commonly stored either as text in the prompt or as an update to model weights. Text is modular but must be interpreted on every use, while weight adaptation makes the resulting capability difficult to load, remove, or share independently. We introduce KV-Skill, a design space of external factorized operators that a frozen language model reads through a lightweight interface. KV-Skill supports two complementary paths. Registration converts an authored text skill into a text-derived operator and trains a shared per-backbone interface. Reward learning develops a compact latent operator directly from task outcomes, with or without an authored skill. Neither path adds positions to the prompt. Across ten benchmarks and four backbones from three model families, converting text to a KV-Skill consistently makes the same procedural knowledge more effective. On Qwen3.5-4B LiveMath, registration reaches 77.2 accuracy, compared with 23.4 for the source text skill, 52.0 for SkillOpt, and 64.5 for SoftSkill. Under matched reward training and parameter budgets, KV-Skill gives the best result in seven of eight matched settings against soft prefixes, prefix tuning, and LoRA. A post-hoc rank analysis further shows that text-derived operators retain nearly all of their benefit with one task-aligned direction per injection layer, while matched random directions fail. Finally, one shared interface retains three independently loadable KV-Skills without measurable forgetting. These results show that task knowledge can be acquired from text or experience, compressed into an external operator, and deployed separately from the backbone. Code is available at: https://github.com/shawnzhg/KV-Skill
Zhaowei Han, Xiang Zhang, Bing Han et al.· 0 citations
This work defines a grouping metric, specify a harness, and shows how tracking a human-AI pair's grouping over time yields the compounding signal that Paper 1's field study requires.
What a frontier model recalls about a person or tool from its own weights -- before any retrieval step -- often shapes the first description a human sees, making that parametric corpus presence a measurement problem. Citations explain about a third of whether a model recognizes a researcher; we target the residual and build NameRank, a [0,1] recognition score: each of 4,685 entities in 54 cohorts is probed with one open-ended question across 36 models, and an independent judge returns a binary verdict against a curated gold -- did the model state a specific, non-guessable fact about this exact entity? -- so hallucination, context echo, and guesses earn nothing. Synthetic-null entities hold the floor near zero, and verdicts track the entity, not the model. One thesis organizes the findings: recognition is paid to named, indexable artifacts, not to credentials or titles. Every Olympic-style credential sits below a working-researcher baseline, because no named artifact ships with the medal, yet the ranking inverts at the marquee tier, where Nobel, Turing, and Fields laureates saturate the panel. For independent creators the tool out-ranks its maker, and the credential that does propagate is a named method or awarded paper. Being one of many named contributors to a celebrated artifact, by contrast, earns almost nothing -- the authors listed on a flagship model report or system card sit near the recognition floor -- because recognition attaches to the artifact's own distinctive name, not to the roster behind it. No bibliometric predicts recognition well; top-density institutions out-recognize peers at matched citations; and on 258 news events recognition loads on peak salience, not persistence. A self-report probe shows introspection reads a corpus prior, not its own knowledge.
A new measure of curricular exposure to large language models is constructed by combining task-level estimates of LLM capabilities with course descriptions from more than 1,000 U.S. colleges and universities, showing that colleges have recognized the instructional challenge posed by generative AI but have made limited observable changes to how student learning is assessed.
†. JacobLight, David Autor, Nick Bloom et al.· 0 citations
A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.
