US dataswitch to UK
Computer User Support Specialists
overseeing the daily performance of computer systems, conferring with staff and entering commands and observing system functioning to verify correct operations and detect errors. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: maintaining records of daily data communication transactions. The tasks, though, are not you.
It would be a lie to soften that; installing and performing minor repairs is what this work rebuilds around. The routes below start from it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Provide technical assistance to computer users. Answer questions or resolve computer problems for clients in person, via telephone, or electronically. May provide assistance concerning the use of computer hardware and software, including printing, installation, word processing, electronic mail, and operating systems. The job title says “computer user support specialists”. The real job is the part underneath: installing and performing minor repairs. 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 computer user support specialists 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 installing and performing minor repairs, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 58%
- changing shape
- 18%
- staying human
- 24%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 58 out of 100 (52–64 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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 computer user support specialists 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 2026-08-04. 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.
- 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
9 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.
Reading technical manuals
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical manuals in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read technical manuals, confer with users, or conduct computer diagnostics to investigate and resolve problems or to provide technical assistance and support.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (66–74 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: Reading manuals, running diagnostics and working out fixes is documented technical work with plenty of reference material.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Answering user inquiries regarding computer software or hardware operation to resolve problems
This is reading one thing and writing another: user inquiries regarding computer software in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Answer user inquiries regarding computer software or hardware operation to resolve problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 70 out of 100 (66–74 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: Answering software and hardware questions is well-documented support work, though users like a person for tricky cases.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Overseeing the daily performance of computer systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: the daily performance of computer systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Oversee the daily performance of computer systems.” (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: Watching how systems are performing is continuous monitoring that software already does at a screen.
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.
Maintaining records of daily data communication transactions
This is reading one thing and writing another: records of daily data communication transactions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Maintain records of daily data communication transactions, problems and remedial actions taken, or installation activities.” (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: Logging transactions, faults, fixes and installations is record-keeping that ticketing systems capture automatically.
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
3 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 staff, users and management to establish requirements for new systems or modifications
The software now makes the first pass at staff, users and management, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with staff, users, and management to establish requirements for new systems or modifications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Requirements are easy to write up, but they come from talking with the people who will use the system.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing training materials and procedures
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 3 · CoreSource: “Develop training materials and procedures, or train users in the proper use of hardware or software.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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: Training material is easy to produce, though running sessions with users is done with them present.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Conducting office automation feasibility studies
The software now makes the first pass at office automation feasibility studies, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct office automation feasibility studies, including workflow analysis, space design, or cost comparison analysis.” (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: Feasibility studies on workflow, layout and cost are analysis and writing, with some looking at the actual space.
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
4 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.
Setting up equipment
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Set up equipment for employee use, performing or ensuring proper installation of cables, operating systems, or appropriate software.” (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: Software and settings can be pushed remotely, but plugging in cables and kit happens at the desk.
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.
Installing and performing minor repairs
This work happens in the physical world: minor repairs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Install and perform minor repairs to hardware, software, or peripheral equipment, following design or installation specifications.” (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: Software installs can be done remotely, but repairing hardware and peripherals means opening the machine.
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.
Inspecting equipment and reading order sheets to prepare for delivery to users
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Inspect equipment and read order sheets to prepare for delivery to users.” (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: Checking equipment against order sheets before delivery means physically looking at the kit.
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.
Show the other 6 tasks
Entering commands and observing system functioning to verify correct operations and detect errors
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: commands in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Enter commands and observe system functioning to verify correct operations and detect errors.” (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: Running commands and reading the output to spot errors is exactly what monitoring scripts already do.
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.
Preparing evaluations of software or hardware
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: evaluations of software in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Prepare evaluations of software or hardware, and recommend improvements or upgrades.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Evaluating kit and software and recommending upgrades draws on abundant public specifications and reviews.
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 4/4.
Modifying and customizing commercial programs for internal needs
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: commercial programs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Modify and customize commercial programs for internal needs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Customising commercial software is coding against documented interfaces, which software does 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 4/4.
Referring major hardware or software problems or defective products to vendors or technicians for service
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: major hardware in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Refer major hardware or software problems or defective products to vendors or technicians for service.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (72–86 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: Escalating a fault to a vendor or engineer is routine ticket handling.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading trade magazines and technical manuals
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: trade magazines in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Read trade magazines and technical manuals, or attend conferences and seminars to maintain knowledge of hardware and software.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (55–69 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: Keeping up with hardware and software is reading published material, with some events attended in person.
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 4/4.
Hiring, supervising and directing workers engaged in special project work, problem-solving, monitoring and installation of data communication equipment and software
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles workers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Hire, supervise, and direct workers engaged in special project work, problem-solving, monitoring, and installation of data communication equipment and software.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hiring, directing and supporting a project team rests on working closely with the specific people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $61,860a 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
- 717,190in 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: records of daily data communication transactions in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining records of daily data communication transactions and reading technical manuals. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where minor repairs 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
The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: maintaining records of daily data communication transactions is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 58% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 18% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 24% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 16 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is installing and performing minor repairs, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.
This week: one thing
Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of records of daily data communication transactions you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.
- What you end up holding
- a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
- How long it takes
- an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client
If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of records of daily data communication transactions, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.
Over the next 90 days
Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is maintaining records of daily data communication transactions” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.
Over the next 12 months
Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of installing and performing minor repairs you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. 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 computer user support specialists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was network and computer systems administrators: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do and it is under the same pressure this job is. Your own job splits about 58/42: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “set up equipment for employee use, performing or ensuring proper installation of…”, and let the exposed end go.
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.
Network and Computer Systems Administrators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already answer user inquiries regarding computer software or hardware operation to resolve problems, and their equivalent is to diagnose, troubleshoot, and resolve hardware, software, or other network and system problems, and…. 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. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 65% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (60/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it.
Computer Network Support Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop training materials and procedures, or train users in the proper use of…, and their equivalent is to train users in procedures related to network applications software or related systems. 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. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 66% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (66/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. And it is a narrow door: about 146,190 of those jobs against 717,190 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 20% as many seats.
Computer Hardware Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already install and perform minor repairs to hardware, software, or peripheral equipment, following design…, and their equivalent is to test and verify hardware and support peripherals to ensure that they meet specifications…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $161,740 against your $61,860 is 2.62× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 5% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 76,660 of those jobs against 717,190 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 11% as many seats.
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: 58% of its task weight, across 16 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: installing and performing minor repairs is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
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 IT user support 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 IT user support 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
Two honest options, and no deadline on either
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
A nearby route
There's no Space built for IT support specialists yet.
Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.
The closest match is SharePoint & Teams Admins, a community for the small IT teams who own Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive and permissions, usually one to three people. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: the access, permissions and sharing tickets that come out of SharePoint and Teams. It is written for the people who own those settings, which may or may not be you. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.
- Problem: “Nobody can explain why this user has access to a SharePoint folder”
- Problem: “My SharePoint permissions are too messy for Copilot rollout”
Try SharePoint & Teams Admins free →
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for IT support specialists 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 Computer User Support Specialists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Computer User Support Specialists (United States, SOC 15-1232), 58% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 58 out of 100 (range 52–64, band: partial). 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 “Computer User Support Specialists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Enter commands and observe system functioning to verify correct operations and detect errors” (93/100, very high); “Maintain records of daily data communication transactions, problems and remedial actions taken, or installation activities” (93/100, very high); “Prepare evaluations of software or hardware, and recommend improvements or upgrades” (83/100, very 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 “Computer User Support Specialists” stay human?
- About 24% 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: “Hire, supervise, and direct workers engaged in special project work, problem-solving, monitoring, and installation of data communication equipment and software” (13/100, minimal); “Inspect equipment and read order sheets to prepare for delivery to users” (14/100, minimal); “Install and perform minor repairs to hardware, software, or peripheral equipment, following design or installation specifications” (14/100, 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 “Computer User Support Specialists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 58% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 24% 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 Computer User Support Specialists 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
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.
- 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 2026-08-04.
- 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.