Workers Train AI on Jobs as Benefits and Gaps Emerge
Left 0%
Center 50%
Right 50%
0 left · 1 center · 1 right
What happened
Companies including San Francisco-based Mercor have hired more than 100,000 freelance experts—among them music producers, physicians, and winemakers—to train AI models such as ChatGPT and Claude on professional tasks, with pay reported from about $20 to $200 an hour. A Columbus, Ohio, law firm, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, worked with Stanford’s Liftlab to build internal AI personas trained on senior lawyers’ experience. Pew Research found nearly three-fourths of Americans fear AI will take jobs; McKinsey estimated AI could force 11 million U.S. workers into new careers by 2035. Separate research from Stanford and the U.S. Census reported slower hiring and weaker wages for some young workers in AI-exposed occupations, while a Gallup/Jobs for the Future study found many AI users report working faster and more creatively, with usage concentrated among college graduates and managers.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles
3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: American Job Quality Study, Molly Blankenship, Robbie Hiser, Brendan Foody and Kim Herlihy
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: dataset/statistics release
- Credits another outlet 0 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 4, 23:53 UTC by CBS News, naming its source. First document the next day, from Fox Business (dataset/statistics release).
- Not counted 2
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only right-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
Business Insider reported it on 2026-09-22.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage reports that workers who already use AI finish work faster and that college graduates use it far more than others, while left-leaning coverage is silent. Fox Business never reports that experts are being hired to teach AI their own jobs, or that a Nobel economist says those training gigs will not offset the workers replaced. A reader of the right-leaning story, or of the silent left, would think the live issue is who gets to use the tools, not who is paid to train their own replacement.
Right-leaning coverage leads with "major benefits" and ends on spreading them to more workers. It does not mention that nearly three-fourths of Americans now fear AI is coming for their jobs.
If the gains accrue to people already in quality jobs, what happens to the workers whose expertise is being sold to train the models?
Bottom line
Fox Business told the AI-work story as a benefits gap for college graduates, and left-leaning outlets told none of it; neither reported that more than 100,000 people are already being paid to train AI on their own jobs.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Mercor has assembled more than 100,000 freelancers to teach AI models their fields
- Nobel economist Daron Acemoglu said unemployment could triple in the next decade if nothing is done
The Right View
Fox Business reported the American Job Quality Study (Gallup, Jobs for the Future, and The Families & Workers Fund, January–March), which found 63% of workers who used AI said it helped them work faster and 56% said it helped them find more creative solutions; college graduates were more than twice as likely as those without degrees to use AI daily or weekly (40% vs. 17%), and 37% of managers versus 25% of individual contributors were regular users. CBS News/60 Minutes reported on Mercor CEO Brendan Foody’s view that AI will free workers from rote tasks; trainers such as music producer Robbie Hiser who say human experience still matters; lawyer Kim Herlihy’s use of an AI persona that she said is for optimization, not replacement; Clara Shih’s decision to leave senior AI roles at Salesforce and Meta to help young workers; and Nobel economist Daron Acemoglu’s warning that, on the current path, unemployment could triple within a decade and that AI-training jobs would not offset replacements.
Our Take (balanced)
The reporting is substantive: named firms (Mercor, Vorys), named individuals (Foody, Hiser, Herlihy, Shih, Acemoglu), and cited studies (Pew, McKinsey, Gallup/JFF, Stanford, Census) with checkable claims. Established: large-scale paid expert training of AI models exists; some workers report speed, quality, and creativity gains; regular AI use is higher among college graduates and managers; early data show hiring and wage pressure for some young workers in highly AI-exposed jobs. Projected, not observed: 11 million career shifts by 2035 and unemployment tripling. Center outlets including CBS News/60 Minutes have reported the experts-training-AI and displacement story in depth; Fox Business covered the related Gallup usage-and-benefits study. It is not accurate that this topic has been covered only by right-leaning outlets. Watch next for updated employment and wage data in AI-exposed occupations, company layoff attributions, and any concrete policy or tax proposals on AI and hiring.
5 sources
- Workers using AI are seeing major benefits – but a gap is emerging
- Will AI take your job? Or will it transform the way you work? | 60 Minutes
- Experts are training AI how to do their jobs
- Experts are training AI on how to do their jobs
- 60 Minutes Transcript: Artificial intelligence and the future of work
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.