So, reading that study, I have a few concerns about how it was conducted and my concerns generally aligns with their findings. Primarily, their source for information is the payroll system of the companies studied, which in my experience is nothing more than an HR drone entering into the system what they’re told to enter. If the prescribed reason is AI even when it was really business performance, then that kind of aligns with the study in the OP.
Their graphs of roles most and least exposed to AI disruption is dandy, but if you think about it (with the exception of customer service roles) the jobs that are threatened are typically not production roles for the company, and are moreso ancillary positions for most companies. I’m a software engineer for a company that doesn’t sell software, which means I’m more of a luxury than a necessity; this is true for the majority of software engineers.
The roles least exposed to AI, according to the study, are production roles that play a core role in the product delivery of the company. Things like construction workers, nurses, cooks, etc. are only in businesses where they are the core of the business model. I’ve never seen a movie theater chain employ nurses or cooks in droves, but they have employed secret shoppers (auditors), accountants, software engineers, etc. and are likely to trim that fat when times get tough. I think this is more of an economic health indicator than anything, IMO.
Looks like Stanford disagrees, 13% of entry level work has been replaced by AI.
https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Canaries_BrynjolfssonChandarChen.pdf
So, reading that study, I have a few concerns about how it was conducted and my concerns generally aligns with their findings. Primarily, their source for information is the payroll system of the companies studied, which in my experience is nothing more than an HR drone entering into the system what they’re told to enter. If the prescribed reason is AI even when it was really business performance, then that kind of aligns with the study in the OP.
Their graphs of roles most and least exposed to AI disruption is dandy, but if you think about it (with the exception of customer service roles) the jobs that are threatened are typically not production roles for the company, and are moreso ancillary positions for most companies. I’m a software engineer for a company that doesn’t sell software, which means I’m more of a luxury than a necessity; this is true for the majority of software engineers.
The roles least exposed to AI, according to the study, are production roles that play a core role in the product delivery of the company. Things like construction workers, nurses, cooks, etc. are only in businesses where they are the core of the business model. I’ve never seen a movie theater chain employ nurses or cooks in droves, but they have employed secret shoppers (auditors), accountants, software engineers, etc. and are likely to trim that fat when times get tough. I think this is more of an economic health indicator than anything, IMO.