Dull, Dirty, Dangerous? Working Conditions and the Limits of Occupational AI Exposure

Title:Dull, Dirty, Dangerous? Working Conditions and the Limits of Occupational AI Exposure

Abstract:Automation is often justified as relief from dull, dirty, and dangerous work. I examine how these conditions relate to occupational AI exposure using 21 O*NET items across 754 US occupations. Higher exposure is associated with lower condition scores under a large language model (LLM) measure and AI Occupational Exposure (AIOE), with equal occupation weights and employment weights. Adjustment for physical demands, required education, training and experience, and wages reduces the composite association. The adjusted confidence intervals include zero for LLM exposure and remain below zero for AIOE. Separating repetition from restricted discretion also changes what the combined Dull score conveys. These comparisons show how item groupings and occupational characteristics shape the interpretation of exposure estimates. Occupational profiles offer a starting point for selecting contrasting research settings. Establishing desired automation or realized relief requires evidence about workers' preferences and specific interventions.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); General Economics (econ.GN)

arXiv:2611.06888 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2611.06888v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.06888 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.