US dataswitch to UK
Chemical Technicians
conducting chemical or physical laboratory tests to assist scientists in making qualitative or quantitative analyses of solids, compiling and interpreting results of tests and analyses and providing technical support or assistance to chemists or engineers. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: maintaining, cleaning or sterilizing laboratory instruments or equipment is work software can't reach.
What shifts is writing technical reports or preparing graphs or charts to document experimental results: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
Conduct chemical and physical laboratory tests to assist scientists in making qualitative and quantitative analyses of solids, liquids, and gaseous materials for research and development of new products or processes, quality control, maintenance of environmental standards, and other work involving experimental, theoretical, or practical application of chemistry and related sciences. The job title says “chemical technicians”. The real job is the part underneath: maintaining, cleaning or sterilizing laboratory instruments or equipment. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But chemical technicians is not one task. It is 16 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is maintaining, cleaning or sterilizing laboratory instruments or equipment, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 15%
- changing shape
- 7%
- staying human
- 79%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 27 out of 100 (22–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 16 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for chemical technicians is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
2 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Compiling and interpreting results of tests and analyses
This is reading one thing and writing another: results of tests in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Compile and interpret results of tests and analyses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning test numbers into a clear interpretation is desk work software already does well from the lab's own data.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing technical reports or preparing graphs or charts to document experimental results
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write technical reports or prepare graphs or charts to document experimental results.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up results as a report with charts is exactly the kind of drafting software now does at least as well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Ordering and inventorying materials to maintain supplies
The software now makes the first pass at materials, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Order and inventory materials to maintain supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reordering supplies from stock levels is routine system work, with only occasional need to physically count what is on the shelf.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
13 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Maintaining, cleaning or sterilizing laboratory instruments or equipment
This work happens in the physical world: laboratory instruments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain, clean, or sterilize laboratory instruments or equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Cleaning and sterilizing glassware and instruments is entirely hands-on work at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting chemical or physical laboratory tests to assist scientists in making qualitative or quantitative analyses of solids
This work happens in the physical world: chemical, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct chemical or physical laboratory tests to assist scientists in making qualitative or quantitative analyses of solids, liquids, or gaseous materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running lab tests means handling samples and instruments at the bench, so software can help plan and read results but not do the work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing and maintaining a safe work environment by participating in safety programs
This work happens in the physical world: a safe work environment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide and maintain a safe work environment by participating in safety programs, committees, or teams and by conducting laboratory or plant safety audits.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Safety audits need someone walking the lab or plant, though the checklists, findings and follow-up paperwork can largely be drafted automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring product quality to ensure compliance with standards and specifications
This work happens in the physical world: product quality, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor product quality to ensure compliance with standards and specifications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (0–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Judging product quality usually means looking at and handling the goods.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical support or assistance to chemists or engineers
This work happens in the physical world: technical support, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide technical support or assistance to chemists or engineers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Helping chemists often means being at the bench with them, and much of what makes the help useful is local know-how.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing chemical solutions for products or processes
This work happens in the physical world: chemical solutions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare chemical solutions for products or processes, following standardized formulas, or create experimental formulas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Mixing and measuring chemical solutions is bench work, even though the formulas themselves are written down and easy to look up.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training new employees on topics
This work happens in the physical world: new employees, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train new employees on topics such as the proper operation of laboratory equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training on equipment involves showing someone how to use it in person, though the course material itself is easy to generate.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 6 tasks
Developing new chemical engineering processes or production techniques
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put new chemical engineering processes well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop new chemical engineering processes or production techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can propose process ideas, but proving a new production technique works needs real trials in a real plant.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing or conducting programs of sampling and analysis to maintain quality standards of raw materials
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop or conduct programs of sampling and analysis to maintain quality standards of raw materials, chemical intermediates, or products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Designing a sampling scheme is paperwork software can draft, but actually taking and running the samples means being in the plant.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing or fabricating experimental apparatus to develop new products or processes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: experimental apparatus, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design or fabricate experimental apparatus to develop new products or processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Sketching apparatus can be assisted digitally, but building experimental rigs is workshop work that needs hands and improvisation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing or monitoring other workers producing chemical products
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: other workers producing chemical products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Direct or monitor other workers producing chemical products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing production workers depends on being present on the floor and on the working relationship with the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Setting up and conducting chemical experiments
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: and conducting chemical experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Set up and conduct chemical experiments, tests, and analyses, using techniques such as chromatography, spectroscopy, physical or chemical separation techniques, or microscopy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Loading instruments, preparing columns and running the analysis all happen at the machine, so only planning and write-up can be handled digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Operating experimental pilot plants, assisting with experimental design
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: experimental pilot plants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Operate experimental pilot plants, assisting with experimental design.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running a pilot plant means being on the rig adjusting real equipment, so only the experimental design part sits at a screen.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $60,390a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 57,540in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: technical reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: writing technical reports or preparing graphs or charts to document experimental results and compiling and interpreting results of tests and analyses. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where laboratory instruments get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: maintaining, cleaning or sterilizing laboratory instruments or equipment is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 15% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 7% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 79% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 16 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Writing technical reports or preparing graphs or charts to document experimental results is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to technical reports, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether laboratory instruments are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near ordering and inventorying materials to maintain supplies. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to chemical technicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was chemists: only about 13% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 27/100 here, with only 15% of the task list in the top band, and “maintain, clean, or sterilize laboratory instruments or equipment” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Chemists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain, clean, or sterilize laboratory instruments or equipment, and their equivalent is to maintain laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions when needed. Across both published task lists that is about 13% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 13% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Biological Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already order and inventory materials to maintain supplies, and their equivalent is to clean, maintain and prepare supplies and work areas. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain, clean, or sterilize laboratory instruments or equipment, and their equivalent is to clean and maintain equipment, using hand tools. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $48,990 against your $60,390, 18.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 15% of its task weight, across 16 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like maintaining, cleaning or sterilizing laboratory instruments or equipment arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Laboratory technicians is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Laboratory technicians. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for chemical technicians, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 15% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for chemical technicians. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for chemical technicians launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Chemical Technicians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Chemical Technicians (United States, SOC 19-4031), 15% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 27 out of 100 (range 22–33, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Chemical Technicians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write technical reports or prepare graphs or charts to document experimental results” (93/100, very high); “Compile and interpret results of tests and analyses” (75/100, high); “Order and inventory materials to maintain supplies” (56/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Chemical Technicians” stay human?
- About 79% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain, clean, or sterilize laboratory instruments or equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Operate experimental pilot plants, assisting with experimental design” (8/100, minimal); “Monitor product quality to ensure compliance with standards and specifications” (9/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Chemical Technicians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 15% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 79% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Chemical Technicians calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 16 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
About the data on this page
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.