Campbell Lund et al. argue in Cohere that exposure scores need policy coordination

Campbell Lund et al. argue in Cohere that exposure scores need policy coordination

Cohere authors Campbell Lund, Thomas Euyang, Zanele Munyikwa and Marzieh Fadaee published this paper on June 10, 2026. They describe GPTs are GPTs scores as measuring the share of occupational tasks a large language model tool can assist with. The scores capture particular AI systems, an occupational taxonomy and a specific moment, the authors say; their influence in policy analysis has outlasted those limits. They argue that policy-facing work continues to use static scores without engaging with methodological updates that could make assessments more reliable. The authors survey research responding to static scoring’s limits, including worker-centered metrics and adoption and usage data. But better measurement alone, they argue, will not close the deeper coordination gap between researchers and policymakers. They call on policymakers to widen the evidence base, engage workers as epistemic partners and shift from prediction to preparedness. Researchers, they say, should build data infrastructure, use interdisciplinary and participatory methods, and produce work with policymakers’ needs in mind. The authors conclude that closing the research-policy gap is a shared task, with distinct but parallel responsibilities. The abstract does not specify how these changes would affect particular policy decisions or outcomes.

Publication: f14e1ae0-eedf-8637-7f89-6de86b1509be

attribution — pass: The four named authors match the page, and the argument is attributed to them throughout. Calling them 'Cohere authors' rests on the paper appearing on Cohere's research page; the text does not state their affiliations, but this does not misattribute the argument.

Campbell Lund, Thomas Euyang, Zanele Munyikwa, and Marzieh Fadaee

summary — uncertain: The summary never says the GPTs are GPTs scores were produced in 2023 by Eloundou et al. A general reader could assume the Cohere authors created them or not see why age matters to the temporal critique. Smallest repair: say the scores were calculated in 2023 by Eloundou et al. Otherwise the two gaps, the five research families and the shared responsibilities are conveyed faithfully. 'Epistemic partners' is left unexplained but is not central.

A set of exposure scores calculated in 2023 have become a central empirical input to the future of work debate. Produced by Eloundou et al. (2023)

date — pass: The June 10, 2026 date matches the page dateline and originalPublished at day precision. The modified date equals the publication date. The related-works sidebar is not used. Nothing is framed with hindsight.

Jun 10, 2026

support — pass: The claims match the abstract: the exposure definition, the temporal, geographic and ontological limitations, policy work not engaging with methodological updates, the shared responsibilities, and the statement that measurement is not enough. The question and limitations stay conditional and do not add unsupported benefits.

we observe tangible impacts in how the temporal, geographic, and ontological limitations of these scores compound when translated into policy-facing analyses

media — pass: No media is selected and no candidates were supplied, so nothing is misidentified.