US dataswitch to UK
Chemists
developing, improving or customize products, equipment, formulas, processes or analytical methods, writing technical papers or reports or preparing standards and specifications and maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: writing technical papers or reports or preparing standards and specifications. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Conduct qualitative and quantitative chemical analyses or experiments in laboratories for quality or process control or to develop new products or knowledge. The job title says “chemists”. The real job is the part underneath: maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions. 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 chemists is not one task. It is 12 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 25%
- changing shape
- 17%
- staying human
- 58%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 35 out of 100 (29–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 12 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 chemists 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.
- 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
3 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.
Writing technical papers or reports or preparing standards and specifications
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical papers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write technical papers or reports or prepare standards and specifications for processes, facilities, products, or tests.” (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: Writing up technical reports, standards and specifications is document work software drafts to a standard chemists can edit.
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.
Compiling and analyzing test information to determine process or equipment operating efficiency or to diagnose malfunctions
This is reading one thing and writing another: test information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Compile and analyze test information to determine process or equipment operating efficiency or to diagnose malfunctions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium 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: Pulling test data together to spot efficiency problems or faults is exactly the kind of analysis software handles well.
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.
Purchasing laboratory supplies, such as chemicals, when supplies are low or near their expiration date
This is reading one thing and writing another: laboratory supplies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Purchase laboratory supplies, such as chemicals, when supplies are low or near their expiration date.” (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: Reordering chemicals when stock runs low is routine ordering work, though hazard rules mean a chemist still checks.
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.
Changing shape
2 tasksTasks 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.
Conferring with scientists or engineers to conduct analyses of research projects
The software now makes the first pass at scientists, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with scientists or engineers to conduct analyses of research projects, interpret test results, or develop nonstandard tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Discussing results with scientists and engineers is real conversation, though much of it already happens by email and shared documents.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Evaluating laboratory safety procedures to ensure compliance with standards or to make improvements
The software now makes the first pass at laboratory safety procedures, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate laboratory safety procedures to ensure compliance with standards or to make improvements as needed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium 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: Checking safety procedures against published standards is largely document comparison, with occasional walk-rounds of the laboratory.
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
7 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.
Developing, improving or customize products, equipment, formulas, processes or analytical methods
This work happens in the physical world: customize products, equipment, formulas, processes or analytical methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop, improve, or customize products, equipment, formulas, processes, or analytical methods.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Software can suggest formulations and methods, but roughly half the work is proving them at the bench.
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 2/4.
Maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions
This work happens in the physical world: laboratory instruments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions when needed.” (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: Diagnosing an instrument fault can be assisted remotely, but keeping it working means opening and adjusting it.
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.
Analyzing organic or inorganic compounds to determine chemical or physical properties
This work happens in the physical world: organic, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze organic or inorganic compounds to determine chemical or physical properties, composition, structure, relationships, or reactions, using chromatography, spectroscopy, or spectrophotometry techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal 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: Instruments and their data are digital, yet preparing and running samples is mostly hands-on laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Conducting quality control tests
This work happens in the physical world: quality control tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct quality control tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal 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: Quality control results are read and logged digitally, but the testing itself is done by hand at the bench.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Preparing test solutions, compounds or reagents for laboratory personnel to conduct tests
This work happens in the physical world: test solutions, compounds or reagents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare test solutions, compounds, or reagents for laboratory personnel to conduct tests.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Weighing, mixing and making up solutions and reagents is physical laboratory handling.
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 2/4.
Show the other 2 tasks
Directing, coordinating or advising personnel in test procedures for analyzing components or physical properties of materials
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put personnel well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct, coordinate, or advise personnel in test procedures for analyzing components or physical properties of materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Written procedures can be drafted automatically, but directing colleagues through them still needs a person they answer to.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inducing changes in composition of substances by introducing heat
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: changes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Induce changes in composition of substances by introducing heat, light, energy, or chemical catalysts for quantitative or qualitative analysis.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Actually putting heat, light or catalysts into substances means physically handling them in a laboratory.
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 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $91,240a 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
- 82,770in 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 papers in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: writing technical papers or reports or preparing standards and specifications and compiling and analyzing test information to determine process or equipment operating efficiency or to diagnose malfunctions. 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
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Writing technical papers or reports or preparing standards and specifications is going; maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions is not.
So, given all that: 25% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 58% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 12 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles maintaining laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. 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 chemists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was chemical technicians: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 33.8% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 35/100 here, with only 25% of the task list in the top band, and “develop, improve, or customize products, equipment, formulas, processes, or analytical methods” 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.
Chemical Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions when needed, and their equivalent is to maintain, clean, or sterilize laboratory instruments or equipment. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $60,390 against your $91,240, 33.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Biological Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions when needed, and their equivalent is to set up, adjust, calibrate, clean, maintain, and troubleshoot laboratory and field equipment. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $57,510 against your $91,240, 37.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Materials Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct quality control tests, and their equivalent is to conduct or supervise tests on raw materials or finished products to ensure their…. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 25% of its task weight, across 12 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
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 Chemical scientists 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 Chemical scientists. 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 chemists, 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 25% 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 chemists. 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 chemists 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 Chemists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 12 official task statements scored for Chemists (United States, SOC 19-2031), 25% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 35 out of 100 (range 29–41, 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 “Chemists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Compile and analyze test information to determine process or equipment operating efficiency or to diagnose malfunctions” (75/100, high); “Write technical papers or reports or prepare standards and specifications for processes, facilities, products, or tests” (75/100, high); “Purchase laboratory supplies, such as chemicals, when supplies are low or near their expiration date” (75/100, high). 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 “Chemists” stay human?
- About 58% 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: “Prepare test solutions, compounds, or reagents for laboratory personnel to conduct tests” (0/100, minimal); “Induce changes in composition of substances by introducing heat, light, energy, or chemical catalysts for quantitative or qualitative analysis” (0/100, minimal); “Maintain laboratory instruments to ensure proper working order and troubleshoot malfunctions when needed” (8/100, 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 “Chemists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 25% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 58% 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 Chemists 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 12 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- 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.