AI Guides › Playbooks
By Nigel Guy · 9 min read
The default way people price AI-augmented work is to copy a screenshot. Somebody posts "I made £10k in a month with AI", the client is unnamed, the invoice is cropped, and you quietly anchor your own rates to a number nobody can check. It feels like market research. It is income theatre, and it leaves you either overcharging for work you cannot yet deliver or undercharging because the "real" money always seems to be somewhere else.
The rule: price the job you already know how to value, then add only the AI premium you can evidence, and write down where every number came from.
There is published data on this. It measures something narrower than the screenshots claim, and that is what makes it useful.
| Source | What it measured | Headline finding |
|---|---|---|
| PwC 2026 Global AI Jobs Barometer (June 2026) | More than one billion job adverts across 27 countries and territories | Average wage premium for AI skills of 62%, up from 57% the year before. Varies by sector: up to 118% in some (consumer markets), 16% in government and public sector |
| PwC 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer | Close to a billion job adverts | 56% premium for AI skills, up from 25% in the 2024 edition |
| Lightcast, Beyond the Buzz (July 2025) | Over 1.3 billion job postings | Postings that mention AI skills advertise salaries 28% higher, which Lightcast puts at roughly $18,000 a year |
| Oxford Internet Institute, Bone, Ehlinger and Stephany (Feb 2025) | Over 10 million UK online vacancies, 2018 to mid-2024 | AI skills carry a 23% wage premium, compared with 13% for a master's degree and 33% for a PhD. In science, engineering and tech roles the AI premium is 36% |
What these numbers have in common:
None of these sources gives a reliable figure for freelance day rates for AI-assisted work in the UK. The Lightcast figure is reported in dollars, and its split by country couldn't be confirmed, so don't convert it to pounds and quote it as a UK number.
The Premium Ledger is a one-page table you fill in before you quote. It has five lines, and each one needs a source written next to it.
| Line | What goes in it | Where the number comes from |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Base rate | What this job is worth without AI | Your own past invoices, or current UK job adverts or rate surveys for the same role. Write down the link or the invoice |
| 2. Evidence of difference | What AI changes in your output: faster turnaround, more variants, a deliverable you couldn't produce before | Your own before-and-after record on at least one real or practice job, with times logged |
| 3. Premium band | The share above base you can defend | Start from the published range that matches your sector and country, and go no higher than your line 2 evidence supports |
| 4. Price | Base multiplied by (1 + premium) | Arithmetic. Show it |
| 5. Disclosure | What the client is told about how the work is made, and who checks it | Your terms, and any client or sector rules on AI use |
Here is how to fill it in, step by step.
Priya, a hypothetical freelance copywriter in Leeds, writes product descriptions. Her past invoices show she charges £300 for a set of 20. That is line 1. She tests an AI-assisted workflow on a practice set. It takes her about half the time, and she can now include three tone variants per product, which she couldn't do before. That is line 2, logged with times. She takes the UK reference of about 23% as her band, because the variants are new value the client can see. Line 4: £300 × 1.23 = £369, which she rounds to £370 for a set of 20 with variants. Without the variants she keeps £300 and simply earns more per hour. Line 5: her terms say AI tools assist with the drafts, and she personally edits and checks every description.
None of this produces a £10k month. What it produces is a price she can explain.
Use this to turn your notes into a filled-in ledger. Fill in your role, sector, location, base-rate evidence and test log.
You are a pricing analyst helping a UK freelancer or employee price work they now do with AI assistance. You are cautious and you show your working.
My context:
- Role and type of work: [ROLE_AND_DELIVERABLE]
- Sector and country: [SECTOR], [COUNTRY]
- Base-rate evidence (my invoices or dated job adverts, with sources): [BASE_RATE_EVIDENCE]
- My before-and-after test log (times, outputs, what is new): [TEST_LOG]
- Published premium references I am using: [PREMIUM_SOURCES]
Steps:
1. Check that each input is present. If the base-rate evidence or the test log is missing or vague, stop and ask me for it. Do not estimate it.
2. State the base rate and the source behind it.
3. Summarise what my test log actually shows the client gains. Separate "faster for me" from "more value for the client".
4. Propose a premium band, explaining which published reference it is anchored to and why my evidence supports going above or below that reference.
5. Calculate the price, showing the arithmetic.
6. Draft one plain sentence for clients about how AI is used and who checks the work.
Output: a five-row table (Base rate, Evidence of difference, Premium band, Price, Disclosure) with a "Source" column, followed by no more than five bullet points of caveats.
Constraints: use £ only. Do not invent market rates, statistics or client results. Treat job-advert premiums as advertised salaries, not earnings. If a number has no source, label it "unsourced" in the table.
Before you answer, check: does every figure in the table have a source or an "unsourced" label, and is any part of the premium justified only by my time saving rather than client value?
Paste in the claim when a screenshot is tempting you. Fill in the post text and anything it links to.
You are a sceptical editor who checks claims about earnings from AI work. You are not trying to debunk anything for sport. Your job is to separate what can be verified from what cannot.
Claim to assess: [PASTE_POST_OR_CLAIM]
Any linked evidence: [LINKS_OR_NONE]
Steps:
1. List each factual assertion in the claim: amounts, time period, client, deliverable, method.
2. For each one, say whether it can be checked from the material given, and how.
3. Name what is missing that a real pricing decision would need: base rate, hours, costs, repeatability.
4. Say whether any of it is usable as a pricing reference, and if so, which part.
Output: a table (Assertion, Checkable? yes/no, What would verify it), then a one-line verdict.
Constraints: do not assume the claim is false or true. Do not search for or name private individuals. If the claim is too vague to assess, say so and ask me for more detail.
Before you answer, check: have you treated any unverifiable figure as if it were evidence?