Interesting Economic Index paper from Anthropic, based on 1m+ Claude.AI conversations. Analysed through O*NET classifications, shows #AI use in over 36% of occupations.
Thoughts:
1. This analysis would ordinarily be undertaken by government labour departments. Analysis of the use of #AI tools is now predicated on companies releasing this data. Anthropic has released *some* of the data used for analysis - but not all - e.g. the actual prompts.
https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/EconomicIndex
2. This data is linked to US occupational classifications (O*NET), and AFAICT, there is no way to identify in the dataset (I looked) what the geography of the user is. That means this analysis can't be used to analyse **Australian** patterns of AI use - which links to the #sovereignAI discourse.
3. Given Anthropic's outsized role in the industry, and the push for adoption by e.g. Microsoft of tools like e.g. CoPilot, I wonder if this economic analysis will become a *target* - following Goodhart's Law. Which would increase AI usage, which would benefit Anthropic.
4. I found the distinction between automation and augmentation in this analysis useful. Drawing from #cybernetics, automation can be viewed as first-order - the user directs the intent. Augmentation is more reflexive, with the intent negotiated. What are the implications of #LLM involvement here?
5. The pattern of increasing use among higher-skilled professions - up to the cliff of those requiring advanced degrees (e.g. surgeons) where usage dropped off - indicates to me that advanced degrees still provide a "moat" - but for how long?
6. I really loved the feedback form Anthropic provided for researchers to suggest new research directions and to give feedback on the format of the dataset that was released. This connects research with practice - praxis.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfDEdY-mT5lcXPaDSv-0Ci1rSXGlbIJierxkUbNB7_07-kddw/viewform
https://www.anthropic.com/news/the-anthropic-economic-index