How to read shaky AI-job-impact studies: Bayesian updating beats gold standard
alexolegimas · x · 2026-09-21
A methodology debate over a paper linking AI exposure to weaker early-career employment: alexolegimas argues no such paper has gold-standard methodology — read them like a Bayesian, where six papers from different angles showing the same thing justify updating beliefs, since good causal data won't exist until the results are obsolete. Economist DavidSimon is skeptical, noting messy pre-trends in employment-to-population ratios and effect timing that doesn't line up with when AI should matter. danielrock adds that publication norms force papers to overclaim causality; the honest framing is 'AI-exposed early-career workers are having a tougher time, causality unclear.'
More from AGI Musings
- Math community roasted: netizen jokes Terry Tao's AI backtrack would've been better said bluntly — ctjlewis · 2026-09-21
- AI computer use will break social networks' walled gardens, argues X user — tokumin · 2026-09-21
- Giles Carden and Josh Freeman discuss AI and the future of universities — ArtificialOther · 2026-09-21
- Back-of-envelope math: 60k ICLR submissions equal roughly one per AI PhD student worldwide — kchonyc · 2026-09-21
- Nature Health Paper Proposes an 'Epidemiology of AI,' Arguing AI Is Now a Determinant of Health — EricTopol · 2026-09-21
- MIT Professor Patrick Winston's Free 'How to Speak' Lecture Hits 10M Views, Rattling $15K-a-Session Executive Coaches — WileyEd · 2026-09-21