What jobs are safe from AI?
career hate criminal
>>85571975real lesbian poetry, the kind that is only written on paper and is kept away from men
>>85571975No job is truly safe, you have to make yourself ai proof.
the only ai-proof jobs are legal. judge, lawyer. or highly emotional. therapist, pallative care.
>>85571975sucking dicks being a prostitute etc
>>85572002AI therapists are a big thing and many real therapists suck. That's not a safe job. I'm not saying the profession will be wiped out, but many people who want what therapy does are going to chat bots. One of the very first things at risk from AI
>>85571975hard to automate physical labor jobs. so anything that requires moving around a lot and working in tight spaces, like a plumber
>>85572017no, highly emotional jobs can not be replicated by AI because ai can never and will never be able to feel. human intuition and empathy will still outclass AI long after we're dead
>>85571975Trades and sex work.
>>85572026Humans don't have enough empathy to tell the difference between a chatbot just telling her things it scraped off the internet and a human actually speaking from the heart. The fact is a human therapist is like 100 a session and a chatbot doing maybe a worse, but comparable thing is free. If the free wins out 80% of the time, then that's a 5x increase in competition among the therapists.
>>85572047before AI chatbots people called helplines or googled stuff or talked to friends or even retards on imageboards. but they always have taken some form of free emotional help.professional emotional help will not go away, because AI can only answer to your prompts, it cannot understand empathy and therefore cannot understand you any deeper than you currently understand and explain yourself.
When i grow up and I'm an adult at around 40 (I'm only 27 right now living with my parents) I wanna be da hvac guy
>>85572088>(I'm only 27 right now living with my parents)You thought that's gonna make me laugh but it actually only made me snort
>>85572067What's the difference between a therapist with genuine insight telling you things you didn't understand about yourself and a LLM that Frankensteins together a bunch of therapy blog bullshit it read online and spits out the exact words?And like I said, and I'll extend it to all the other professions AI is threatening: it's not going to eliminate a profession, it's going to reduce headcount of everything by 80%
>>85572088I have those same gauges for my HVAC work.
plumber
>>85572105A very big difference. Getting bland information isnt the same as connecting with a genuine human being, being understood and seen, and having a person with their own genuine experiences and thoughts, just like youLook, I dont want to debate this until Lake Ontario dries up, it's just hypothetical anyway. My opinion simply is that legal jobs and highly emotional jobs will remain completely safe from AI as they can only be used as tools in these jobs, they are unable to replace them.
I think no job is really safe once robotics gets good enough, but anything involving healthcare or personal grooming is probably safest. I don't think people would want a robot nurse or barber even if they are better at the job mechanically. The human element is what many people appreciate about those jobs.
>>85571975The question is, what purposr has the cabal for AIs>>>/pol/542663523
>>85572110Apparently HVAC takes the least amount of certification to get started, electrician takes the mostIf being an English teacher Davido-san in Asia doesn't fix me then when I get back I'm going to live by myself in a cheap apartment in the midwest and simply put my head down and humbly work myself to death as a tradie
>>85571975Rapists
manual labor and talking to hoomanscomputer work is done for.
>>85572067>>85572026>>85572002>correct, all jobs will go away, except these specific jobs that I personally care aboutWhy couldn't AI be a lawyer? I bet they already use it. Ive never been to theraphist but did have profound conversations with AIIt has a database of millions of humans expressing themselves already.
>>85572494They aren't jobs I care about, I just answered OP's question with my opinion.LLMs are still merely statistical models. This wont change in the next decades. There are legal, structural, and relational barriers that AI simply cannot replicate, not even with a robot. Courts require accountability. It relies on reading a courtroom, adapting to live testimonies, and dynamic human negotiation. Automatic sentencing would be rejected, which is precisely why the legal system works the way it does today. The legal system requires value-based judgment, not statistics.High-emotional work requires shared humanity, attunement, and physical presence. Trauma processing needs genuine empathy to provide results. An AI could never handle an acute crisis, any intervention it would make would be missing context.AI can only eliminate administrative workload, and help as a multiplier, like any tool. But these two fields are, in my opinion, completely safe.
>>85572026I don't see how being a therapist would be a "highly emotional job". Unless if you mean by therapist "someone who listens to me whine for $50 an hour".>>85572143I would love to be able to show a robot hairdresser a picture of me with an AI generated haircut to my liking and have the job done perfectly. As someone who often switches hairdressers, I hate how inconsistent they can be. >>85571975Unironically stock trading because you can't really predict markets using very rigid logic. You sort of have to have a feel for it and AI tradebots are really risk averse and only make small gains usually on very safe low risk trades. Creative fields are obviously safe too.
>>85572544Therapists provide emotional containment and shared presence, no amount of text on a screen will ever be able to do that. The tiniest things are notable, human body language is still how we communicate 70% of what we really say. If you rely purely on an AI therapist, you're really just doing your own research using a very efficient google search. You will get back a reflective answer, but any deep psychological repair or clinical healing only works with human-to-human trust, just as in any relationship.
>>85572524>AI can never ever ever replicate human emotions! Not in a million years or a trillion or a billion years!! It is just a cold heartless machine and the human experience is unique and special>yep! Im specialI admire the level of certainty you speak of this. Why couldn't a machine replicate something?If it exists, it can be broken down to study how it works and it can be replicated. There is nothing special about humanity
>>85571975shabbos goy
>>85572590Cutie. My answer is that regardless of how well we manage to replicate the neural feedback loops, our neurochemistry, and evolutionary inputs and put them down into a synthetic system, it's still vastly different to merely look at the output of emotions, and to actually feel them in you. Our super advanced could calculate a billion data points to give you the perfect response, but it will never be able to feel that response.Our emotions are deeply tied to our environment, our feelings, our safety, our hormones, our mortality. To us. High-level emotional work requires shared vulnerability. It works because both participants are human, and real. We understand each other. Any AI, regardless of how advanced, will only ever be able to emulate emotions.
>>85571975>What jobs are safe from AI?A lot of medical stuff like dentist, surgeon, etc. will be safe from AI. The only thing AI could do would be diagnostic/decision-making stuff like evaluating x-rays and deciding how to treat a patient. (Fully autonomous robotic dentists and robotic surgeons won't be here for decades.)Most construction work is safe from AI: building houses, road construction, etc. (Again, replacement by robots is decades away.)And a bunch of jobs will change their nature because of AI, but they won't disappear. For example, software engineers will have to move up to a higher level -- so instead of actually writing the code, they will instead summarize product requirements and then write them as AI prompts so the AI can do the actual coding. Being a lawyer will have a similar kind of transition to "higher level" work, where most of the job will involve writing AI prompts.Basically, AI makes the English language the new "programming language", which makes it accessible to every worker in the knowledge sector of the economy. It won't be long before colleges start offering courses in writing AI prompts, and it will become a required course for all students. In other words, lots of jobs will be turned into "programming" jobs, where English is the programming language.
>>85572643>The Human language is the new programming language.Bruh when I was like 11 I tried to make my own videogame in Gamemaker but I would rather drink my own puke and piss and then puke it out again and then drink it again than learn nerdy ass programming language. I could do simple animations, drawing, game design, music all this shit but I refused to poison my mind with programming. I feel like if I was that age right now I could easily make a hit mobile game or something. >>85572565Well yeah it would depend on the type of therapy. You could have AI take on the persona of Carl Jung or something and it would probably be more efficient than 90% of human psychotherapists. I guess if you want to do group therapy or anything involving touch or connection, you can't get that with AI.
>>85572706>You could have AI take on the persona of Carl JungDelivering information isn't emotional processing. The most important part of therapeutic work isn't the smarts or the psychological framework, it's the felt sense of trust, safety, and human attunement. An AI mimicing Carl Jung would give you lectures, not repair. It's an AI chatbot roleplaying. Yet, you cannot do real high-level emotional work with a mirror. If therapy were just about absorbing brilliant ideas, reading Jung's books would have cured everyone decades ago.
>>85571975Alot of the wagey customer service shit, like I work at a deli, i dont see a machine dealin with the old people wanting their slivers of ham every sunday morning after church
>>85572736I agree with your point about empathy, emotion and connection but when you say: >If therapy were just about absorbing brilliant ideas, reading Jung's books would have cured everyone decades ago.I think you underestimate how difficult and time consuming it is to absorb all of Jung's ideas as an average person. A lot of Jungian therapists are frauds that didn't even read or comprehend his original texts. It takes a very dedicated person. Also you reply reads like it was written by an AI chatbot. You should hide it better if you want to troll me, it is too obvious.
>>85571975There was never such a thing as a safe job, and AI is only going to make them more risky. The only way to be resilient in the future is to become self-sufficient ASAP and be able to provide all that you need to live for yourself. If you don't buy land now then you're going to end up as a serf working the land of someone who did.
ITT cope about AI taking over soulless women's "psychology" jobs (aka armchair psychology)
>>85572832Why oh why must you hurt me so
>>>>85572855Bruh it literally gives 100% AI. You have to be more subtle if you're trolling. If you make it too obvious, it's less fun for both parties. Do better desu yo ne
I've seen pretty convincing arguments for and against all jobs being automated eventually. I'm not really sure what to believe. I think everyone should stop the hope/cope until it actually happens. People are leaving good jobs out of fear and others aren't even trying because they think we'll reach post scarcity soon.
>>85572855If psychological therapy worked then we could have pointed to at least one case where a patient was cured of their psychological malady or whatever and didn't need therapy anymore
Drug dealersHockey players
Any job that receives truck deliveries will never be taken by AI. So grocery stores, pharmacies, warehouses, general stores, food places.Unless AI learns how to drive giant trucks, unload them, organize the pallets in the stockroom without destroying everything and get the product onto the floor. Not happening in our lifetime.
>>85572935It says 0%. I just write like that.>>85573156There are millions of cases. Some issues are acute and solvable. Some issues are lifelong, chronic. If you personally just stay in therapy for years with no clear goals, just venting about your week and looking to be comforted, that's fine, but it isn't clinical treatment.
>>85572631Wow. I just... I am so amazed how people just say stuff and are so certain. Like you are an authority on it. Like you came from the future and personally know the outcome. Unless you have a belief system that tells you that the human experience is "mystical" and "unexplaineable", it is easily disproven.>Ai can't fool us because our patter seeking system evolve...But it has already. People already use AI boyfriends, (talkieAI) AI therapists (freudly) and we are on decade 1.>it can't be replicatedBut it can>Be a scientist>Figure out 1: emotions are chemichal reactions from brain sinapses>2:brain cells are made out of proteins> conclusion: arrange proteins to form braincells>cause chemical reactions on those proteinsThere. I just used basic logic on how to do it. All we need is for the technology to do it. There is nothing special, mystical, magical, supernatural or unexplaineable about the human experience.
model, supermodel
>>85573320But the simulation of an experience is not the experience itself. You're pointing out AI bfs. That's a projection. It actually proves that humans easily project emotion onto machines, not that the machine is actually feeling any emotions. And dumbing down emotions to >chemichal reactions from brain sinapses completely misses why or how our then subjective inner experience comes from those neurobiological mechanisms. So let's say we arrange proteins into brain cells, as you suggested, and trigger a chemical reactions. Boom. We have biologically cloned something. So you yourself are arguing that true emotion requires real, physical, protein-based brain cells undergoing chemical reactions.. because software on a chip is just computing. It can't feel anything.
>>85573348niggers, superniggers
>>85573250>I just write like thatWhat? I don't understand. Could you clarify what you are saying?>>85573156I have OCD and there's plenty of case studies of individuals being cured through old school psychotherapy. I've also read case studies of people being diagnosed with schizophrenia or some other terrible mental condition being cured by antibiotics. People did go insane from infections before antibiotics became a thing. Maybe a lot of mental patients have some type of infection that's hard to detect and cure. I also feel like psychotherapy in the old days was probably much more effective and all the elites still see like Freudian or Jungian therapists but they force the common peoples to do modern therapy which really isn't about self actualization or curing mental illness but about fitting in with society. If you think about it, modern psychology sees someone as cured if they fit in with society, regardless of their actual mental wellbeing.
>>85573374>So you yourself are arguing that true emotion requires real, physical, protein-based brain cells undergoing chemical reactions..Computers are phisical things.>completely misses why or how our then subjective inner experienceIt isn't. Your belief system would imply a human experience could be "AannYythiIiinNgG"No. It isn't. You are a human. You will always by bound by hunger. You can't have a human experience in which you are a cardboard box. It was the same exact thing with AI music. People think its this mystical thing, but it is just a sequence of patterns. AI found those patterns. Music can't be, for example "the color blue" its pretty well defined what music is. All AI had to do is eliminate anything that isn't music and find our definition of beaultiful music.Now all AI has to do is find the definition of human experience. You are not the color blue. You are nothing but patterns
>>85573452You're missing the mark a lot, baby.The statistical pattern, the output of a machine, is different from lived inner experience. Your AI music example: does AI get goosebumps listening to that song? No. It never will. It can't feel happy, or sad, or get nostalgic. It cannot have emotions. The creation of an external pattern, as you like to use, does not mean an internal experience. Recognising or outputting a pattern is just a function. Experiencing that pattern needs human emotion, attunment, awareness.But human emotions are internal, subjective experiences.And a human brain is a physical thing, too. Just like the cup of coffee I have in my hand rn is. But my cup doesn't have emotions, either.
>>85573509Im going to change my argument.Have you ever had halucinations or wrong memories? Probably did, right?Have you ever been so sick you lost track of time? You did, right?Have you ever "felt" soemthing weird, like "being followed" perhaps? Maybe you did.Have you ever seen optical ilusions? Yes.Do people have vivid dreams that never happen, or live in comas for decades or take mind altering drugs? Yes.None of that is real, is it? But it was simulated.You perceive reality by your 5 senses. They can be tricked.Auditory ilusions made you hear someone that wasn't these. Firing up the right sinapses makes you feel touched by the cup of coffee, make you feel the taste, the flavour. You can't be 1000000% sure this isn't real.Both your brain and a brain in a jar can believe they are experiencing the cup of coffee. But neither you can ever be sure
>>85573593Sure, new argument, new debate. I'd like to start with >Cogito ergo sumEven if you experience a hallucination, a consciousness is experiencing them. Your lived experience of whatever hallucation you have is real. You feel it. Your emotions about that are subjectively lived, and real.Human senses can fail or make mistakes, but that doesn't change that a machine is still just outputting a pattern without experiencing it. If you feed a machine bad data doesn't mean you're tricking a real mind, the machine will just output bad patterns.
They're still hiring software engineers, lawyers, consultants, etc., just barely any that are entry-level. If you can actually work in a white collar field, by the time mass unemployment hits, there's a solid chance you'll have enough money saved up you'll be doing drastically better than if you switched into plumbing and now have almost zero clients because demand for blue collar work has now frozen solid and 20 million people now want your job but they'll do it for $7.25 an hour.
>>85573647>Sure, new argument, new debateIts the same argument. We can both: create an AI that gives you a realistic human experience by tricking your brain into thinking its realOrCreating an Ai that thinks is real and gives you a realistic human experience>Your lived experience of whatever hallucation you have is real. You feel itDude, you just believe human experience is mystical and unexplaineable. You're hanged up on that. It isn't
>>85573678You keep treating the output as the only thing that matters. My core argument is that high-level emotional work cannot be replaced by AI. That still stands, 10 messages later, and I've dismantled all your arguments so far.Performing a "script of empathy" or a "script of thinking" is not the same as actual empathy or actual thinking. Because the AI is not actually doing the inner work, it's a statistical model outputting a pattern.Human emotions come from the inside out. That cannot be replicated by AI.
>>85573724>10 messages later, and I've dismantled all your arguments so far.WHATT??I've clearely dominated the conversation the whole time. You believe is mystical experiences and I have nothing but facts. I gave logical explanations, analogies, references and even googled for actual AI therapists. Wtf.What have you done? Saying halucinations are real because I believe in them like jesus believes in me?WHAT
>>85573742Yelling around like a retard isn't an argument, you're just conceding one final time. You confuse what a machine outputs with what a machine experiences. A simulation of an experience is not the actual experience.Take care.
>>85573769Outstanding! I kinda admire you.Wouldn't it be a cherry on top if you were AI this whole time?
>>85571975>What jobs are safe from AIplumbing
>>85572002>legalI certainly hope you're fucking joking because every goddamn law office these days is using chatGPT to make every single document. It's only a matter of time before they start letting LLMs defend and prosecute. Law is the one field that might be using more AI than software engineering in 2026.
