Over the last few months, various academics and AI companies have attempted to predict how artificial intelligence is going to impact the labor market. These studies, including a high-profile paper published by Anthropic earlier this month, largely try to take the things AI is good at, or could be good at, and match them to existing job categories and job tasks. But the papers ignore some of the most impactful and most common uses of AI today: AI porn and AI slop.
Anthropic’s paper, called “Labor market impacts of AI: A new measure and early evidence,” essentially attempts to find 1:1 correlations between tasks that people do today at their jobs and things people are using Claude for. The researchers also try to predict if a job’s tasks “are theoretically possible with AI,” which resulted in this chart, which has gone somewhat viral and was included in a newsletter by MSNOW’s Phillip Bump and threaded about by tech journalist Christopher Mims. (Because everything is terrible, the research is now also feeding into a gambling website where you can see the apparent odds of having your job replaced by AI.)
In his thread, Mims makes the case that the “theoretical capability” of AI to do different jobs in different sectors is totally made up, and that this chart basically means nothing. Mims makes a good and fair observation: The nature of the many, many studies that attempt to predict which people are going to lose their jobs to AI are all flawed because the inputs must be guessed, to some degree.
But I believe most of these studies are flawed in a deeper way: They do not take into account how people are actually actually using AI, though Anthropic claims that that is exactly what it is doing. “We introduce a new measure of AI displacement risk, observed exposure, that combines theoretical LLM capability and real-world usage data, weighting automated (rather than augmentative) and work-related uses more heavily,” the researchers write. This is based in part on the “Anthropic Economic Index,” which was introduced in an extremely long paper published in January that tries to catalog all the high-minded uses of AI in specific work-related contexts. These uses include “Complete humanities and social science academic assignments across multiple disciplines,” “Draft and revise professional workplace correspondence and business communications,” and “Build, debug, and customize web applications and websites.”
Not included in any of Anthropic’s research are extremely popular uses of AI such as “create AI porn” and “create AI slop and spam.” These uses are destroying discoverability on the internet, cause cascading societal and economic harms. Researchers appear to be too squeamish or too embarrassed to grapple with the fact that people love to use AI to make porn, and people love to use AI to spam social media and the internet, inherently causing economic harm to creators, adult performers, journalists, musicians, writers, artists, website owners, small businesses, etc. As Emanuel wrote in our first 404 Media Generative AI Market Analysis, people love to cum, and many of the most popular generative AI websites have an explicit focus on AI porn and the creation of nonconsensual AI porn. Anthropic’s research continues a time-honored tradition by AI companies who want to highlight the “good” uses of AI that show up in their marketing materials while ignoring the world-destroying applications that people actually use it for. (It may be the case that people are disproportionately using Claude at a higher rate for more traditional work applications, but any study on the “labor market impacts of AI” should not focus on the uses of one single tool and extrapolate that out to every other tool. For what it’s worth, jailbroken versions of Claude are very popular among sexbot enthusiasts).
This post is for paid members only
Become a paid member for unlimited ad-free access to articles, bonus podcast content, and more.
Subscribe
Sign up for free access to this post
Free members get access to posts like this one along with an email round-up of our week’s stories.
Subscribe
