Pharmacists, lawyers, and journalists.
It isn't just dangerous jobs - it's repetitive or easily automated ones across the board. In very few cases does it completely eliminate a role - more often it is a force multiplier, letting fewer do more.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/3-white-collar-jobs-robo...
Being a real journalist is a far more creative work then being a programmer. Especially in fields like investigative journalism - you must be a 100,000X programmer if you think you can replace Glenn Greenwald with a bot.
When customers stop paying, fewer journalists have jobs.
The greedy non-news model predates the internet for a long while. The internet just brought some competition.
Well, the robots don't buy newspapers.
At this point, there should be a name for "No True Scotsman" applied to creativity. I have a tough time seeing the comparison between someone reporting what actually went on to someone creating wholly new things. I actually don't want creativity in my journalists or historians. I want ethics and fact checking.
On the other hand, I am very little impressed by the quality of what passes for journalism and am pretty confident that a computer could write much of what I see with better fact checking. Very much like CASE tools of old were used to write programs. At least a robot might be programmed with the courtesy to quote the whole thought and not make cuts that can be attacked or change the meaning.
As to the narrative, too many journalists write their articles as if they were pundits defending their beliefs and "trying to change the world". It is great to be engaging and write something that interests people, but leave the punditry for the political campaigns.
(Even really simple things like computerizing prescriptions and flagging known bad combinations make them more effective, roughly for free)
The pharmacists at my local pharmacy seem to spend most of their time advising patients and dealing with their problems, verifying the pill dispensers actually dispensed the right medication and it is all intact, handling physical scripts for things like controlled substances, calling doctors when a prescription doesn't make sense or wasn't clear, flagging possible drug abuse, managing inventory, handling drugs that can't easily be dispensed by the machines like insulin and checking how much a person's insurance will cover and if it is still valid.
But with online ordering(PillPack ,etc) ,the laws are different, so there's more automation.
I grew up in such a town, and as a kid, I knew the pharmacist a lot better than the family doctor: "my ma told me to ask you about this wart on my hand", that kind of thing. Heck, our pharmacists even did home deliveries to old people (on her bike, no joke). I'm in a my mid-thirties, so this is not entirely ancient history.
So I can see why that social aspect of the work - which is incredible valuable - cannot be automated.
Now, there's WebMD, pharmacists are doing a shift in CVS, "small town life" is pretty much dead, these soft relationships between shopkeepers and customers no longer exist, people no longer defer to authority as easily as they used to, ...
Also, pharmacists have the law on their side. Drugs are a political issue, so they nurture their role as gate-keeper. For that reason alone, the credentialing will persist. The only difference is that perhaps a pharmacist will just be the lady pushing the on/off button on the vending machine, but still, somebody will need to push that button. The jobs that will be automated won't be the pharmacist's job, it will be the assistant's jobs.
Why would using a bike to make deliveries be a joke?
Lots of things are delivered by bike.
She tried to call the pharmacy to see if there was any other alternative, or chance to get on her old pill due to the nasty side-effects. All she got in response was heartless no's and not our problem.
So I totally agree with the idea that these soft-relationships are a thing of the past.