Jobs' AI Exposure Should Be Measured from Evidence, Not Model Priors

This position paper argues that job exposure to AI should be measured with grounded, evidence-based methods, not inferred from LLM priors alone. Current theoretical exposure measures use zero-shot prompting to classify task-level AI exposure, generating labels with no explicit evidence, no transparent chain of reasoning, and no external validation. The stakes of these measurements are too high to rely on such methods, as they influence policy making, where public and private funds are directed, and how workers understand their future prospects. We therefore argue that AI capability claims should meet three standards: reproducibility, external grounding, and inspectability. We propose a retrieval-augmented framework that assigns AI exposure labels to all 18,796 occupation--task pairs in O*NET 30.2, using open-weight reasoning and instruct models with retrieved news articles and academic paper abstracts as evidence of current AI capabilities. Relative to a zero-shot baseline, the grounded condition is preferred in over 72% of disagreement cases under both automatic and human evaluation, and yields scores that align more closely with observed real-world AI usage. Taken together, these findings suggest that evidence-grounded measurement better captures what current AI systems can plausibly do in practice, rather than what a model asserts without external evidence. Because AI capabilities continue to change, the measurements used to inform policy must evolve with them: theoretical AI exposure scores should be periodically reassessed, not inherited as immutable ground truth.