Follow the money: a startup-based measure of AI exposure across occupations, industries and regions

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the workplace is advancing rapidly, necessitating robust metrics to evaluate its tangible impact on the labour market. Existing measures of AI occupational exposure largely focus on AI's theoretical potential to substitute or complement human labour on the basis of technical feasibility, providing limited insight into actual adoption and offering inadequate guidance for policymakers. To address this gap, we introduce the AI Startup Exposure (AISE) index-a novel metric based on occupational descriptions from O*NET and AI applications developed by startups funded by the Y Combinator accelerator. Our findings indicate that while high-skilled professions are theoretically highly exposed according to conventional metrics, they are heterogeneously targeted by startups. Roles involving routine organizational tasks-such as data analysis and office management-display significant exposure, while occupations involving tasks that are less amenable to AI automation due to ethical or high-stakes, more than feasibility, considerations -- such as judges or surgeons -- present lower AISE scores. By focusing on venture-backed AI applications, our approach offers a nuanced perspective on how AI is reshaping the labour market. It challenges the conventional assumption that high-skilled jobs uniformly face high AI risks, highlighting instead the role of today's AI players' societal desirability-driven and market-oriented choices as critical determinants of AI exposure. Contrary to fears of widespread job displacement, our findings suggest that AI adoption will be gradual and shaped by social factors as much as by the technical feasibility of AI applications. This framework provides a dynamic, forward-looking tool for policymakers and stakeholders to monitor AI's evolving impact and navigate the changing labour landscape.

A Bayesian approach to translators' reliability assessment

Translation Quality Assessment (TQA) is a process conducted by human translators and is widely used, both for estimating the performance of (increasingly used) Machine Translation, and for finding an agreement between translation providers and their customers. While translation scholars are aware of the importance of having a reliable way to conduct the TQA process, it seems that there is limited literature that tackles the issue of reliability with a quantitative approach. In this work, we consider the TQA as a complex process from the point of view of physics of complex systems and approach the reliability issue from the Bayesian paradigm. Using a dataset of translation quality evaluations (in the form of error annotations), produced entirely by the Professional Translation Service Provider Translated SRL, we compare two Bayesian models that parameterise the following features involved in the TQA process: the translation difficulty, the characteristics of the translators involved in producing the translation, and of those assessing its quality - the reviewers. We validate the models in an unsupervised setting and show that it is possible to get meaningful insights into translators even with just one review per translation; subsequently, we extract information like translators' skills and reviewers' strictness, as well as their consistency in their respective roles. Using this, we show that the reliability of reviewers cannot be taken for granted even in the case of expert translators: a translator's expertise can induce a cognitive bias when reviewing a translation produced by another translator. The most expert translators, however, are characterised by the highest level of consistency, both in translating and in assessing the translation quality.