6 karma · joined August 15, 2026
i looked at very similar data as anthropic (was a bit amusing to look at these side by side) with physical tasks being part of the equation much more prominently (across all jobs).
if you're interested: https://largelabormodel.com/mirror?job=2221
- the 4,811 tasks are derived from 480 jobs and measured against technical ability by deployed systems which then score each job on "replaceability"
- Technical replaceability ≠ replacement, could (by technical capability) vs. does/will
- wrote a short-ish essay on the data and how to read it: https://largelabormodel.com/two-jobs
- full methodology is here: https://largelabormodel.com/methodology-full
- the model is built to be disagreed with (and evolve). would love your input, thoughts, requests, etc. — most useful thing you can do: look up a job you've done and tell me where its task table is wrong
a new hand who doesn't have to wonder what the body is doing will be much more effective than one feeling around for other limbs.
but also find myself getting almost annoyed when i have to do things myself but without the joy or knowledge that these correction will help another human being become better at something but just feed an opaque database that will likely not learn much from it.
esp. in a time when formal (white collar) qualification will probably become much less relevant than ad-hoc problem solving
take ATMs. they automated the task but the rung above it remained human. someone to handle exceptions, sell the mortgage, etc. running a branch actually became cheaper. cheaper branches meant more branches, so teller headcount went up for two decades.
what seems different now isn't that the models are better at tasks. it's that the rung above is being climbed at the same time. the coordination layer is getting absorbed concurrently rather than a generation later.
that doesn't mean no new work appears but every historical instance seems to have some kind of "escape route" which i'm not sure exists this time around.