Imagine you run a restaurant kitchen. For years, your most valuable asset was the chef who memorized 500 recipes — that was expensive, hard-won knowledge. Then someone installs a screen that can display any recipe instantly, perfectly, on demand. Overnight, memorized recipes stop being scarce. What stays scarce? The cook who can feel when the pan is too hot, who adjusts seasoning by instinct, who improvises when the delivery is wrong. That's tacit knowledge — learned through repetition, not textbooks. This paper asks: if GenAI is the recipe screen for the entire economy, what happens to the price of textbook knowledge versus hands-on experience? The committed claim: in AI-exposed occupations, the wage premium for a year of formal schooling has dropped measurably since ChatGPT's release, while the premium for early-career experience has risen — but that experience bonus flips negative after roughly 18 years. The mechanism is substitution-plus-complementarity. GenAI replaces codified knowledge (the stuff you can write down and teach in class), making it less scarce and therefore less valuable in wage bargaining. But codified and tacit knowledge are complements: when the machine handles the codifiable parts, the residual human contribution — judgment, adaptation, pattern recognition from practice — becomes the binding constraint. That pushes up the price of recent, transferable experience. The catch is the word 'transferable.' Experience built on pre-AI workflows depreciates, which is why the experience premium rotates rather than uniformly shifting — it rises for workers with 3 years of experience and falls for those with 25. The empirical strategy is clean and transparent. The authors use US Current Population Survey earnings data spanning 2018 through June 2026, splitting occupations into top-quartile and bottom-quartile AI exposure using the pre-ChatGPT Felten-Raj-Seamans index. They run a difference-in-differences design around the November 2022 ChatGPT release. The headline numbers: a 0.55 log-point decline in the return to an additional year of schooling in exposed occupations post-release, a 0.26 log-point increase in the return to experience at 3 years of potential experience, no change at 15 years, and a 0.12 log-point decline at 25 years. The crossover point — where AI exposure stops helping and starts hurting experience returns — lands at 18.1 years under their baseline quadratic specification. The robustness battery is the paper's strongest suit. The breaks appear precisely at launch, not before. A pandemic-era placebo test (using the same exposure index around March 2020) shows no comparable breaks — critical, because the CPS sample spans COVID and its recovery. A common censoring rule applied across the full sample doesn't kill the result. And when each occupation is allowed its own pre-shock schooling and experience gradients, the pattern survives. The authors are also honest about what they can't do: this is a short-run partial-equilibrium exercise. They aren't claiming these are causal estimates of AI's long-run effect on the wage structure — they're documenting that the repricing has already begun and showing it's consistent with a specific theoretical mechanism. The theoretical framework is deliberately parsimonious. A short-run model decomposes worker human capital into codified and practice-based components. The machine substitutes for the codified part at the point of production; wage effects follow from how this substitution changes the marginal value of each component. The authors don't need a general equilibrium model because they're making a narrower point: the pattern of breaks in the Mincer equation (schooling gradient down, experience gradient rotated) is exactly what the substitution-complementarity mechanism predicts, and the timing matches the technology shock. The 64 pages, 13 figures, and 19 tables reflect thoroughness, not padding. The field fight this enters is real and consequential: does AI complement or substitute for human capital, and for which kinds? The skill-biased technical change literature assumed technology raises returns to education. This paper says GenAI does the opposite for the codifiable component of education, which is a direct challenge to the SBTC consensus. The experience result is newer territory — most AI-labor papers focus on the education margin and treat experience as a control variable, not a price to be explained. The rotation mechanism (early experience up, late experience down) is the paper's most distinctive theoretical and empirical contribution. What's missing is any direct measurement of tacit knowledge itself. The paper infers its role from the shape of the experience-earnings profile, not from observing what workers actually do differently post-AI. That's a fair limitation of CPS data — you get wages and demographics, not task diaries. The successor experiment would pair this wage evidence with task-level data (like ONET or time-use surveys) to directly test whether the composition of tasks shifts toward tacit-knowledge-intensive activities in exposed occupations after the release. The authors almost certainly know this; it's a different dataset and a different paper.
