Who Uses AI? Platform Selection and the Measurement of Occupational AI Exposure

A growing body of literature measures the extent to which occupations are exposed to AI, yet existing measures capture where AI could perform tasks rather than whether workers have actually adopted it. We introduce a distinct tier of exposure, delegated exposure, which records whether a worker has committed a task to AI by embedding it into a structured workflow. We operationalize this concept through the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), measuring how closely an occupation's tasks align with the agentic routines that practitioners have built and shared. Using semantic embeddings of roughly 888,000 agent skill specifications from public GitHub repositories, we compute their similarity to nearly 18,000 O*NET task statements and aggregate these scores to the occupational level. We present three main findings. First, the occupations where task delegation concentrates differ sharply from those identified as most vulnerable by pre-AI automation frameworks. Second, the AAI aligns more closely with measures of technical capability than with measures of current conversational LLM use. Third, for occupations requiring a bachelor's degree or less, the AAI increases alongside average wage levels; however, this relationship reverses for occupations requiring a master's degree or higher, where adoption declines among higher earners. These patterns replicate on an independently collected corpus of agent skills from the Manus Skills Marketplace. This lower adoption among highly educated, high-earning workers may reflect tasks that inherently resist advance specification or professional discretion over the pacing of workflow codification. Distinguishing these mechanisms will require longitudinal measurement.

A set of exposure scores calculated in 2023 has become a central empirical input to the future of work debate. Produced by Eloundou et al. (2023) and referred to here as the GPTs are GPTs scores, they define exposure as the share of occupational tasks a large language model can assist with. This work is a genuine methodological contribution, but as the scores travel from the time and place they were produced, the limitations the authors named do not always travel with them. Two gaps have widened as a result. The first is structural, between what static exposure scores measure and what policy questions actually require. Taking the diffusion of these scores as a case study, we show how their temporal, geographic, and ontological limitations compound in policy-facing analyses, and we survey five families of research responding to these limits: dynamic and benchmark-based measures, ensemble methods, task-framework extensions, worker-centered metrics, and adoption and usage data. The second gap is the one we argue needs more attention: the coordination between researchers and policymakers. The policy-relevant work which ask who is harmed, who benefits, how, and when, continues to reference the static GPTs are GPTs scores without engagement with the methodological updates that would let these questions be answered more reliably. We then ask what additional steps towards navigating uncertainty remain: ex-post frameworks and the deliberate, political work of reimagining what futures are worthy of building towards are. Closing the research-policy gap is a shared task: policymakers must widen their evidence base, engage workers as epistemic partners, and shift from prediction to preparedness; researchers must build data infrastructure, adopt participatory methods, and write with policymakers in mind. Better measurement matters, but it will not close the second gap alone.

This paper presents an empirical analysis of AbbVie Intelligence's measurable impact on employee work activities across 192 distinct occupations in 2024 and 2025. Drawing on 598,744 de-identified AI conversations classified according to the O*NET Intermediate Work Activity (IWA) taxonomy, we compute occupation-level AI Applicability Scores that quantify the extent to which AI tools can meaningfully assist or automate real work at scale. Three convergent analyses are conducted: (1) longitudinal year-over-year trends from 2024 to 2025, (2) a quasi-experimental pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie Intelligence version 3 platform release in August 2025, and (3) a pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie AI Learning Summit held in November 22025. Results demonstrate statistically significant improvements across all three dimensions. Mean AI Applicability Scores rose substantially from 2024 to 2025; the platform release product a +10.0% gain (p<0.001); and the AI Learning Summit produced a +6.68% gain (p<0.001). These findings establish that both technological platform enhancements and structured enterprise AI eduction programs independently and substantially expand the reach of AI across the AbbVie workforce.