 |
|
|
|||||
A new study from MIT that shows that AI might be poised to replace a lot more jobs than what initial estimates might predict. According to researchers, a hidden mass of data reveals that AI is currently capable of taking over 11.7% of the labor market. The new estimate comes courtesy of a project called The Iceberg Index, which was made through a partnership between MIT and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), a federally funded research center in Tennessee. According to its website, the Iceberg Index simulates an agentic U.S.a human-AI workforce where 151M+ human workers coordinate with thousands of AI agents. In simpler terms, the tool is designed to simulate precisely how AI is poised to disrupt the current workforce, down to specific local zip codes. The Iceberg Index model treats Americas 151 million workers as individual agents, each categorized by their skills, tasks, occupation, and location. In total, it maps more than 32,000 skills and 923 occupations across 3,000 counties. In an interview with CNBC, Prasanna Balaprakash, ORNL director and co-leader of the research, described this as a digital twin for the U.S. labor market. Using that base of data, the index analyzes to what extent digital AI tools can already perform certain technical and cognitive tasks, and then produces an estimate of what AI exposure in each area looks like. Already, state governments in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Utah are using the index to prepare for AI-driven workforce changes. Here are three main takeaways from the study: AI is more pervasive in the workforce than we think Perhaps the biggest finding from the study is the discovery of what it calls a substantial measurement gap in how we typically think about AI replacing jobs. According to the report, if analysts only observe current AI adoption, which is mainly concentrated in computing and technology, theyll find that AI exposure accounts for only about 2.2% of the workforce, or around $211 billion in wage value (the report refers to this as Surface Index). But, it says, thats only the tip of the iceberg. By factoring in variables like AIs potential for automation in administrative, financial, and professional services, the numbers rise to 11.7% of the workforce and about $1.2 trillion in wages (this calculation is referred to as Iceberg Index). The studys authors emphasize that these results only represent technical AI exposure, not actual future displacement outcomes. Those depend on how companies, workers, and local governments adapt over time. The AI takeover is not limited to the coasts Its fairly common to assume that the most AI job exposure is concentrated in coastal hubs, where tech companies predominantly gather. But the Iceberg Index shows that AIs ability to take over work force tasks is distributed much more widely. Many states across the U.S., the study shows, register small AI impacts when accounting solely for current AI adoption in computing and tech, but much higher values when other variables are taken into consideration. Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee register modest Surface Index values but substantial Iceberg Index values driven by cognitive workfinancial analysis, administrative coordination, and professional servicesthat supports manufacturing operations, the study reads. How this data can actually make a difference Now that MIT and ORNL have successfully established the Iceberg Index, theyre hoping it can be used by local governments to protect workers and economies. Local lawmakers can use the map to source fine-grain insights, like examining a certain city block to see which skill sets are most in use and the likelihood of their automation. Per CNBC, MIT and ORNL have also built an interactive tool that lets states experiment with different policy leverslike adjusting training programs or shifting workforce dollarsto predict how those changes might affect local employment and gross domestic product. The Iceberg Index provides measurable intelligence for critical workforce decisions: where to invest in training, which skills to prioritize, how to balance infrastructure with human capital, the report reads. It reveals not only visible disruption in technology sectors but the larger transformation beneath the surface. By measuring exposure before adoption reshapes work, the Index enables states to prepare rather than reactturning AI into a navigable transition.
Category:
E-Commerce
The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits declined last week in a sign that overall layoffs remain low, even as several high-profile companies have announced job cuts. U.S. applications for unemployment benefits in the week ending Nov. 22 dropped 6,000 from the previous week to 216,000, the Labor Department reported Wednesday. The figure is below the 230,000 forecast by economists, according to a survey by data provider FactSet. Applications for unemployment aid are seen as a proxy for layoffs and are close to a real-time indicator of the health of the job market. The job cuts announced recently by large companies such as UPS and Amazon typically take weeks or months to fully implement and may not yet be reflected in the claims data. The four-week average of claims, which softens some of the week-to-week volatility, dropped 1,000 to 223,750. For now, the U.S. job market appears stuck in a low-hire, low-fire state that has kept the unemployment rate historically low, but has left those out of work struggling to find a new job. The total number of Americans filing for jobless benefits for the week ending Nov. 15 rose 7,000 to 1.96 million, the government said. The increase is a sign that the unemployed are taking longer to find new work. Last week, the government said that hiring picked up a bit in September, when employers added 119,000 new jobs. Yet the report also showed employers had shed jobs in August. And the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4%, its highest level in four years, as more Americans came off the sidelines to look for work but did not all immediately find jobs. On Tuesday, the government reported that retail sales slowed in September after three months of healthy increases. Consumer confidence plunged to its second-lowest level in five years, while wholesale inflation eased a bit. The data suggests that both the economy and inflation are slowing, which boosted financial markets’ expectations that the Federal Reserve will reduce its key interest rate at its next meeting Dec. 9-10. Christopher Rugaber, AP economics writer
Category:
E-Commerce
The job of a headline is to draw attention to the article beneath it. When a headline instead draws attention to itself, it feels as wrong as a carnival barker cursing out passersby. The New York Times, which remains among the worlds load-bearing newspapers, has published plenty of stories in 2025 with that rogue carnival barker vibe. Why is someone screaming this at me? would be a natural response to headlines like Did Women Ruin the Workplace? which NYT ran earlier this month, inspiring an apoplectic backlash that forced editors to change it to the only-slightly better Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?. Since that controversial header is one of many quickly corrected misfires from the Paper of Record this year, maybe something else is going on beyond avant-garde attention-grabbing. Its nothing new for New York Times headlines to undergo embarrassing post-publication edits, presumably after someone got yelled at. What feels different now is that headline debacles appear to be arriving more regularly in the second Trump termand nearly as often on the News side as on the Opinion side, despite each division having its own separate editors. Even longtime media critics like the NYT Pitchbot account on social media agree this has been a particularly cursed year for NYT headlines. The question is: To what end? Headline mismatch Sometimes, a headline is bending like a tortured circus contortionist to avoid stating the obvious. A recent News story offered the phrase Blending family and governance to describe Donald Trump enriching himself through business ventures while being the actual president. A froth of piping hot internet outrage swiftly followed. NYT then changed the headline to Trump Organization Is Said to Be in Talks on a Saudi Government Real Estate Deal, which sounds blessedly less like a story about finding innovative business loopholes for presidents. Corruption at unprecedented levels with a murderous regime, a mark of totalitarian fascism but: "Blending family and governance" makes it sound like a harmless avocation. #BrokenTimes— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis.bsky.social) 2025-11-15T23:18:25.948Z The Times has this problem where they are afraid to say things frankly, says the anonymous person behind the long-running X and Bluesky account, NYT Pitchbot, which regularly mocks the framing of stories in NYT and The Washington Post. Other times, the headline might be at odds with the story its hyping up. Amid ongoing revelations about the extent to which Jeffrey Epstein claimed Trump knew about his sex trafficking empire, a News story from last week took an arch tone in describing the fallout from recently unearthed Epstein emails and the broad, powerful network of people with which Epstein held sway. It was then saddled with the unfortunate headline Epstein Emails Reveal a Lost New York, which provoked a digital jetspray of bile on social media. Judging from the headline, one might reasonably conclude it was a wistful lament for a golden age of sex crimes in the city. (It was later changed to Epstein Emails Reveal a Bygone Elite.) NYT: We Miss the Old, Rapey New York, Before Our Favorite Financiers Becane Disgraced— Keith Decent (@keithdecent.bsky.social) 2025-11-16T16:33:33.821Z That "clubby" NYT headline is awful, but the piece itself is clear-eyed & observant, if cool in tone it's by a strong writer & it documents the creepy, backpatting insider world of guys griping about MeToo as it happens. The NYT is always doing this! If the hed was different, the piece wd be legit— Emily Nussbaum (@emilynussbaum.bsky.social) 2025-11-16T17:17:45.491Z Over on the Opinion side, plenty of headlines seem expressly designed as ragebait, practically begging Bluesky users to screenshot them into viral infamy. (More so than usual, even.) The same week readers were greeted with Did Women Ruin the Workplace, for instance, one of the writers credited with that piece authored a column bearing the headline Mamdanis Victory is Less Significant Than You Think. That headline arrived the morning after Zohran Mamdanis win in New Yorks mayoral race, before anyone could credibly claim special knowledge about its significance or lack thereof. It did not go down smoothly online, which felt like the entire point. He actually lost by winning— Molly Knight (@mollyknight.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T14:47:02.508Z we can chalk it up to youth and inexperience but the biggest mistake the mamdani campaign made was winning by 8.8% and not 1.5%, which is the margin needed for the media to say its a total mandate— andy (@andylevy.net) 2025-11-05T14:25:22.439Z With headlines like these being a predictable pattern this year, in both News and Opinion, its no wonder the Times is so easily memeable. Social media users are forever fixing the papers headlinesa genre of dunk even the White House oafishly attempted earlier this year. A growing trend When an NYT headline is especially galling, followers of the NYT Pitchbot account tend to tag its creatoreither to make sure hes seen the offending headline, or to suggest a past NYT Pitchbot post may have willed it into existence. According to the person who runs the account, this year has been heavy on such occasions. Even bigger than Did Women Ruin the Workplace was Charlie Kirk Was Doing Politics the Right Way,” the anonymous creator tells Fast Company, describing the headline of an Ezra Klein op-ed NYT ran the morning after the polarizing MAGA influencer was killed. [It was] the worst ever. That had the biggest response from my readers that I have ever seen. Although the person behind NYT Pitchbot claims The Washington Post generates more forehead-slapper headlines than the Times these days, at least theres a simple explanation for that lapse. In the leadup to Trumps electoral victory in 2024, owner Jeff Bezos pulled the papers planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and hes since announced sweeping changes to the opinion section, giving it a more Trump-friendly bent. Amid an exhaustive exodus of talented writers, one remaining columnist recently boasted, Were now a conservative opinion page. But whats the New York Times excuse for producing headlines that seem scientifically engineered to cause a nuclear meltdown on Bluesky? Traffic watch One possible explanation is that the editors are indeed aiming for maximum outrage. A hate-share gets just as much as much traffic as any other kind, after all, and modern media incentives heavily favor the pot-stirring headlines NYT keeps cooking up. I think that they think the dumb headlines encourage people to click through, adds the creator of NYT Pitchbot. Its hard to argue with the strategys apparent success. Theres only so many times one can see the same screenshot of a headline furiously posted online before clicking to find out whether the outrage is warranted or overblown. (Your mileage may vary.) If the explanation is as simple as clicks-at-all-costs, though, its truly a sorry state of affairs for the world. The New York Times is still the crown jewel of legacy media, with all the authority and hefty subscriber base that come with it. If even the upper echelon of journalism is subject to the whims of algo-bait, SEO sorcery, and dying digital readership, what chance does any publication have? As TikTokers, substackers and AI podcasters map out the future of newsand the president attempts to hold dominion over itlegacy media has a responsibility to stay tethered to an era of concise language and a shared reality in its stories and their packaging. In 2025, NYT has too often fallen short of that low bar. When a headline describes the anti-vaxx Secretary of Health as hitting his stride just days after a second Texas child died from a disease the U.S. officially eliminated 25 years ago, its failing its readers. When a headline uses Trump says to uncritically pass along the presidents preferred framing, it feels like capitulation. And when a headline grossly underplays the gravity of a U.S. president threatening his political enemies with death, its practically daring him to give it a go. In a recent piece, the NYT editorial board used 12 metrics to illustrate that the U.S. is well on its way to becoming an autocracy. If the News editors who contributed to that piece believe its findings, they might agree this moment urgently demands political, scientific, and moral clarity. If the Opinion editors also believe our democracy is backsliding, they might admit its the worst possible moment to ask regressive questions about women in the workplace for hate-clicks, something they likely wouldnt have done just a year or two ago. In the meantime, both groups seem to be ushering in a world where the New York Times continued existence is less significant than you think.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||