Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Which Economic Tasks are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.04761 v1 pith:6OC4O2FF submitted 2025-02-11 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CLcs.HCcs.LG

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CLcs.HCcs.LG
keywords tasksusageeconomyacrossanalyzeclaudeconversationsevidence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite widespread speculation about artificial intelligence's impact on the future of work, we lack systematic empirical evidence about how these systems are actually being used for different tasks. Here, we present a novel framework for measuring AI usage patterns across the economy. We leverage a recent privacy-preserving system to analyze over four million Claude.ai conversations through the lens of tasks and occupations in the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET Database. Our analysis reveals that AI usage primarily concentrates in software development and writing tasks, which together account for nearly half of all total usage. However, usage of AI extends more broadly across the economy, with approximately 36% of occupations using AI for at least a quarter of their associated tasks. We also analyze how AI is being used for tasks, finding 57% of usage suggests augmentation of human capabilities (e.g., learning or iterating on an output) while 43% suggests automation (e.g., fulfilling a request with minimal human involvement). While our data and methods face important limitations and only paint a picture of AI usage on a single platform, they provide an automated, granular approach for tracking AI's evolving role in the economy and identifying leading indicators of future impact as these technologies continue to advance.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

    cs.CL 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    State-of-the-art AI detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished peer reviews as fully AI-generated, rendering polishing-only policies currently unenforceable.

  2. Economic Evaluations of Language Models

    cs.CY 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using O*NET and 4.5M chatbot conversations plus synthetic prompts, EconEvals measures LM performance on U.S. work activities and predicts substantial time savings in 47% of occupations, with usage lagging.

  3. The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs align with human moral judgments only under high consensus, concentrate on a narrow set of moral values, and the profile-based prompting method's reported improvement is evaluated in-sample.

  4. Advancing AI Capabilities and Evolving Labor Outcomes

    econ.GN 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Occupations with larger LLM-assessed increases in AI exposure saw larger employment declines, unemployment rises, and work-hour reductions in the US between late 2022 and early 2025.

  5. The Jagged Global Economy: Frontier AI Unevenly Exposes National Economies

    cs.CY 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    National AI exposure, built from occupation scores and ILO employment for 141 countries, is much higher in rich white-collar economies, higher for women in 91% of countries, predicts AI adoption, and rises further via...

  6. Informal Learning Emerges in Everyday Human-LLM Interaction

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Behavioral markers of informal learning occur in about 4.9% of everyday human-LLM user turns and are more common when assistants provide scaffolded support.

Pith tools