Will AI replace Psychiatrists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 12 official task statements scored for Psychiatrists (United States, SOC 29-1223), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 31 out of 100 (range 25–36, 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 “Psychiatrists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Gather and maintain patient information and records, including social or medical history obtained from patients, relatives, or other professionals” (56/100, partial); “Prepare and submit case reports or summaries to government or mental health agencies” (56/100, partial); “Teach, take continuing education classes, attend conferences or seminars, or conduct research and publish findings to increase understanding of mental, emoti…” (41/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Psychiatrists” stay human?

About 76% 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: “Counsel outpatients or other patients during office visits” (13/100, minimal); “Serve on committees to promote or maintain community mental health services or delivery systems” (17/100, minimal); “Examine or conduct laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on general physical condition or mental disorder” (17/100, 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 “Psychiatrists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 76% 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 Psychiatrists 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.

US dataswitch to UK

Psychiatrists

prescribing, directing, analyzing and evaluating patient data or testing findings to diagnose nature or extent of mental disorder and examining or conducting laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on general physical condition or mental disorder. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: prescribing, directing or administering psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional or behavioral disorders 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: 24%
staying human: 76%

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

Whole-job exposure score 31 out of 100 (25–36 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 psychiatrists 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 gathering and maintaining patient information and records: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.

Your week, as this page understands it

Diagnose, treat, and help prevent mental disorders. The job title says “psychiatrists”. The real job is the part underneath: prescribing, directing or administering psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional or behavioral disorders. 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 psychiatrists 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 prescribing, directing or administering psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional or behavioral disorders, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 0%
changing shape: 24%
staying human: 76%

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.

2 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

3 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.

Gathering and maintaining patient information and records
The software now makes the first pass at patient information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Gather and maintain patient information and records, including social or medical history obtained from patients, relatives, or other professionals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling together and keeping patient histories and notes is document work that tools already handle well.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching, taking continuing education classes
The software now makes the first pass at education classes, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Teach, take continuing education classes, attend conferences or seminars, or conduct research and publish findings to increase understanding of mental, emotional, or behavioral states or disorders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Teaching material and research write-ups draw on abundant published literature, so drafting help is strong here.
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 4/4.
Preparing and submitting case reports or summaries to government or mental health agencies
The software now makes the first pass at case reports, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Prepare and submit case reports or summaries to government or mental health agencies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Case reports for agencies follow set formats and draw on records already held electronically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

9 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.

Prescribing, directing or administering psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional or behavioral disorders
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychotherapeutic treatments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Prescribe, direct, or administer psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can suggest medication options, but only a licensed doctor may actually prescribe or give psychiatric treatment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing individualized care plans, using a variety of treatments
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for individualized care plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Design individualized care plans, using a variety of treatments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A draft care plan is possible, but a credentialed clinician normally has to shape and own the final plan.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collaborating with physicians, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses or other professionals to discuss treatment plans and progress
The value here is that a specific person handles physicians, psychologists, social workers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Collaborate with physicians, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, or other professionals to discuss treatment plans and progress.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (16–24 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The value comes from several professionals talking through a case together, which software cannot stand in for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Examining or conducting laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on general physical condition or mental disorder
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for laboratory, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Examine or conduct laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on general physical condition or mental disorder.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (13–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Physically examining a patient and taking samples needs a clinician in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Analyzing and evaluating patient data or testing findings to diagnose nature or extent of mental disorder
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient data, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Analyze and evaluate patient data or test findings to diagnose nature or extent of mental disorder.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tools can flag patterns in test data, but diagnosing a mental disorder is legally a doctor’s act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising or informing guardians, relatives or significant others of patients' conditions or treatment
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for guardians, relatives or significant others of patients' conditions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Advise or inform guardians, relatives, or significant others of patients' conditions or treatment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Breaking difficult news to families depends on trust and reading the room in real time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Counseling outpatients or other patients during office visits
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for outpatients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Counsel outpatients or other patients during office visits.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Progress depends on a trusting relationship built face to face with that particular patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 2 tasks

Reviewing and evaluating treatment procedures and outcomes of other psychiatrists or medical professionals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment procedures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Review and evaluate treatment procedures and outcomes of other psychiatrists or medical professionals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Reviewing colleagues’ treatment decisions needs a qualified peer, though tools can prepare the case summaries.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Serving on committees to promote or maintain community mental health services or delivery systems
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles committees and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Serve on committees to promote or maintain community mental health services or delivery systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 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: Committee work is people negotiating priorities and services with each other over time.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $281,870a 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: 27,980in 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: patient information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: gathering and maintaining patient information and records. What it cannot do is be answerable: psychotherapeutic treatments need 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: prescribing, directing or administering psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional or behavioral disorders 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, 24% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 76% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 12 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. Gathering and maintaining patient information and records 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 patient information, 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 psychotherapeutic treatments are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near gathering and maintaining patient information and records. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to psychiatrists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was mental health and substance abuse social workers: only about 8% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 78.6% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 31/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “prescribe, direct, or administer psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional…” 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.

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already examine or conduct laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on…, and their equivalent is to interview clients, review records, conduct assessments, or confer with other professionals to evaluate…. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $60,280 against your $281,870, 78.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Family Medicine Physicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already collaborate with physicians, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, or other professionals to discuss…, and their equivalent is to coordinate work with nurses, social workers, rehabilitation therapists, pharmacists, psychologists, and other health…. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $244,180 against your $281,870, 13.4% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Pediatricians, General
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already examine or conduct laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on…, and their equivalent is to examine patients or order, perform, and interpret diagnostic tests to obtain information on…. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $210,040 against your $281,870, 25.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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 12 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 prescribing, directing or administering psychotherapeutic treatments or medications to treat mental, emotional or behavioral disorders 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 Specialist medical practitioners and consultants 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 Specialist medical practitioners and consultants. 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:
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.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for psychiatrists 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 psychiatrists 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 psychiatrists 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 psychiatrists 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 Psychiatrists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 12 official task statements scored for Psychiatrists (United States, SOC 29-1223), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 31 out of 100 (range 25–36, 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 “Psychiatrists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Gather and maintain patient information and records, including social or medical history obtained from patients, relatives, or other professionals” (56/100, partial); “Prepare and submit case reports or summaries to government or mental health agencies” (56/100, partial); “Teach, take continuing education classes, attend conferences or seminars, or conduct research and publish findings to increase understanding of mental, emoti…” (41/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Psychiatrists” stay human?: About 76% 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: “Counsel outpatients or other patients during office visits” (13/100, minimal); “Serve on committees to promote or maintain community mental health services or delivery systems” (17/100, minimal); “Examine or conduct laboratory or diagnostic tests on patients to provide information on general physical condition or mental disorder” (17/100, 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 “Psychiatrists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 76% 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 Psychiatrists 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.
2 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.