Will AI replace Ophthalmic Medical Technicians?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 20 official task statements scored for Ophthalmic Medical Technicians (United States, SOC 29-2057), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 8 out of 100 (range 5–13, band: minimal). 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 “Ophthalmic Medical Technicians” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Call patients to inquire about their post-operative status or recovery” (46/100, partial); “Take and document patients' medical histories” (42/100, partial); “Conduct visual field tests to measure field of vision” (11/100, minimal). 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 “Ophthalmic Medical Technicians” stay human?

About 90% 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: “Measure corneal curvature with keratometers or ophthalmometers to aid in the diagnosis of conditions, such as astigmatism” (0/100, minimal); “Conduct tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure” (0/100, minimal); “Assist physicians in performing ophthalmic procedures, including surgery” (0/100, 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 “Ophthalmic Medical Technicians” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 90% 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 Ophthalmic Medical 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 20 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Ophthalmic Medical Technicians

taking and documenting patients' medical histories, administering topical ophthalmic or oral medications and conducting visual field tests to measure field of vision. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: conducting tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 0%
changing shape: 10%
staying human: 90%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 8 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 20 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 ophthalmic medical 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.

What shifts is taking and documenting patients' medical histories. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.

Your week, as this page understands it

Assist ophthalmologists by performing ophthalmic clinical functions. May administer eye exams, administer eye medications, and instruct the patient in care and use of corrective lenses. The job title says “ophthalmic medical technicians”. The real job is the part underneath: conducting tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure. 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 ophthalmic medical technicians is not one task. It is 20 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 0%
changing shape: 10%
staying human: 90%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

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.

3 tasks scored differently between repeat runs, so their range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
14 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

0 tasks

Tasks 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.

Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.

Changing shape

2 tasks

Tasks 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.

Taking and documenting patients' medical histories
The software now makes the first pass at patients' medical histories, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Take and document patients' medical histories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 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: Taking and recording a medical history is structured question-and-record work software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calling patients to inquire about their post-operative status or recovery
The software now makes the first pass at patients, 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 · Core
Source: “Call patients to inquire about their post-operative status or recovery.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Following up after surgery by phone is largely scripted contact, though clinical judgment shapes the replies.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

18 tasks

Tasks 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.

Operating ophthalmic equipment, such as autorefractors, phoropters, tomographs or retinoscopes
This work happens in the physical world: ophthalmic equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Operate ophthalmic equipment, such as autorefractors, phoropters, tomographs, or retinoscopes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running these machines means positioning the patient and the instrument, which needs someone in the room.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure
This work happens in the physical world: tonometry, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Conduct tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Measuring eye pressure involves an instrument touching or aimed directly at the patient's eye.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring visual acuity, including near, distance, pinhole or dynamic visual acuity, using appropriate tests
This work happens in the physical world: visual acuity, including near, distance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Measure visual acuity, including near, distance, pinhole, or dynamic visual acuity, using appropriate tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 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: Reading an acuity chart requires the patient present and responding to the tester.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Taking anatomical or functional ocular measurements of the eye or surrounding tissue
This work happens in the physical world: anatomical, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Take anatomical or functional ocular measurements of the eye or surrounding tissue, such as axial length measurements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Taking measurements of the eye needs the instrument and the patient physically together.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring and recording lens power
This work happens in the physical world: lens power, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Measure and record lens power, using lensometers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: The lensometer reads the power, but someone has to place and hold the lens in it.
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.
Administering topical ophthalmic or oral medications
This work happens in the physical world: topical ophthalmic, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Administer topical ophthalmic or oral medications.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Putting drops in someone's eye or handing over medication is physical care given in person under a doctor's authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting visual field tests to measure field of vision
This work happens in the physical world: visual field tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Conduct visual field tests to measure field of vision.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Visual field testing runs on a machine, but the patient has to be positioned and watched.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting ocular motility tests to measure function of eye muscles
This work happens in the physical world: ocular motility tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Conduct ocular motility tests to measure function of eye muscles.” (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: Eye muscle testing is carried out with the patient in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 10 tasks

Instructing patients in the care and use of contact lenses
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Instruct patients in the care and use of contact lenses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Showing someone how to handle and care for contact lenses is taught hands-on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assisting patients to select eyewear
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Assist patients to select eyewear.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 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: Choosing frames means trying them on and reacting to how they look and fit in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing refractive conditions of eyes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: refractive conditions of eyes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Assess refractive conditions of eyes, using retinoscopes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Shining a retinoscope into a patient's eye and reading the reflex has to happen with the patient there.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting binocular disparity tests to assess depth perception
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: binocular disparity tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct binocular disparity tests to assess depth perception.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Depth perception testing needs the patient present and responding to what they see.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assisting patients to insert or removing contact lenses
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Assist patients to insert or remove contact lenses.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Handling contact lenses in and out of a patient's eye is direct physical care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cleaning or sterilizing ophthalmic or surgical instruments
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: ophthalmic, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Clean or sterilize ophthalmic or surgical instruments.” (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: Cleaning and sterilizing instruments is physical work in the clinic.
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.
Maintaining ophthalmic instruments or equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: ophthalmic instruments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Maintain ophthalmic 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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Keeping clinic instruments working means hands on the equipment.
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.
Adjusting or making minor repairs to spectacles or eyeglasses
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: minor repairs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Adjust or make minor repairs to spectacles or eyeglasses.” (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: Adjusting or repairing glasses is done by hand with tools.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assisting physicians in performing ophthalmic procedures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: physicians, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Assist physicians in performing ophthalmic procedures, including surgery.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assisting during eye surgery is hands-on work in the operating room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Measuring corneal curvature with keratometers or ophthalmometers to aid in the diagnosis of conditions
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: corneal curvature, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Measure corneal curvature with keratometers or ophthalmometers to aid in the diagnosis of conditions, such as astigmatism.” (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: Corneal curvature is measured with the instrument at the patient eye.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $45,570a 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: 71,010in 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: patients' medical histories in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: taking and documenting patients' medical histories. What it cannot do is be answerable: tonometry needs a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. 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: conducting tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 10% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 90% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 20 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. Taking and documenting patients' medical histories 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 patients' medical histories, 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 ophthalmic equipment is 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 taking and documenting patients' medical histories. 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

You did not come here for a career change and I am not selling you one. But one road out of here is worth knowing about, so here it is with the bill attached.

Ophthalmic Medical TechniciansHealth Technologists and Technicians, All Other
a year or morematched on shared tasks
One of the tasks on your list is on theirs in the same words: “conduct tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure”. Take both published task lists together and about 35% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.
About 35% of it you could do on Monday. The rest is the price of the ticket.
The work the two jobs share
- You already do
  “Conduct tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure.”
  They do
  “Conduct tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure.”
- You already do
  “Take anatomical or functional ocular measurements of the eye or surrounding tissue, such as axial length measurements.”
  They do
  “Take anatomical or functional ocular measurements, such as axial length measurements, of the eye or surrounding tissue.”
- You already do
  “Administer topical ophthalmic or oral medications.”
  They do
  “Administer topical ophthalmic or oral medications.”
What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “indicate artifacts or interferences derived from sources outside of the brain”, “conduct tests or studies such as electroencephalography (EEG), polysomnography (PSG), nerve conduction…” or “monitor patients during tests or surgeries, using electroencephalographs (EEG), evoked potential (EP)…”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 65% of their durable work you do not already hold.
The honest bill
Pay: $50,290 against your $45,570 (OEWS May 2025 (both)).
- The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the US Labor Department’s licensed-occupations finder; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
- The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
- What the pay gap is telling you: $50,290 against your $45,570, 10.4% more (OEWS May 2025 (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
- What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free American Job Center service listed below will talk training funding through with you before you pay anyone.
- Is the target job itself holding up: Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other scores 21/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 7% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.
How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 65% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.
See what AI is doing to health technologists and technicians, all other

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.

Ophthalmologists, Except Pediatric
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already administer topical ophthalmic or oral medications, and their equivalent is to prescribe or administer topical or systemic medications to treat ophthalmic conditions and to…. Across both published task lists that is about 15% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 15% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $300,080 against your $45,570 is 6.58× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 15% 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 8,950 of those jobs against 71,010 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 13% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Opticians, Dispensing
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already assist patients to insert or remove contact lenses, and their equivalent is to show customers how to insert, remove, and care for their contact lenses. 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.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already conduct visual field tests to measure field of vision, and their equivalent is to perform diagnostic tests or measurements. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% 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: $115,210 against your $45,570 is 2.53× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 7% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

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: 0% of its task weight, across 20 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 conducting tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure 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 Pharmacy and optical dispensing assistants 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

The other groups this work is counted across:

Optometrists

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Pharmacy and optical dispensing assistants and Optometrists. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

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:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Nearby moves

The jobs above, as pages you can read the same way as this one. Your job shares its core work with these. That is what the match is, and it is all it is.

Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other →About 35% of it you could do on Monday. The rest is the price of the ticket.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for ophthalmic medical 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 Space for ophthalmic medical technicians yet. Should there be one?

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.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for ophthalmic medical technicians existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for ophthalmic medical technicians launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

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 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 20 official task statements scored for Ophthalmic Medical Technicians (United States, SOC 29-2057), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 8 out of 100 (range 5–13, band: minimal). 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 “Ophthalmic Medical Technicians” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Call patients to inquire about their post-operative status or recovery” (46/100, partial); “Take and document patients' medical histories” (42/100, partial); “Conduct visual field tests to measure field of vision” (11/100, minimal). 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 “Ophthalmic Medical Technicians” stay human?: About 90% 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: “Measure corneal curvature with keratometers or ophthalmometers to aid in the diagnosis of conditions, such as astigmatism” (0/100, minimal); “Conduct tonometry or tonography tests to measure intraocular pressure” (0/100, minimal); “Assist physicians in performing ophthalmic procedures, including surgery” (0/100, 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 “Ophthalmic Medical Technicians” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 90% 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 Ophthalmic Medical 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 20 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

3 tasks scored differently between repeat runs, so their 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.
14 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.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

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}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. 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.