You are overstating the report’s conclusions—it said the “jobs might be at risk” which sounds to me like “we want to sound impressive but actually don’t have anything to say”.
I’ve paged through the report and wasn’t impressed. For example (emphasis mine), ”...First, together with a group of ML researchers, we subjectively hand-labelled 70 occupations, assigning 1 if automatable, and 0
if not. … Our label assignments were based on eyeballing the O∗NET tasks and job description of each occupation.” Essentially this a bunch of guesses and opinions with little support in the way of evidence.
You are overstating the report’s conclusions—it said the “jobs might be at risk” which sounds to me like “we want to sound impressive but actually don’t have anything to say”.
I’ve paged through the report and wasn’t impressed. For example (emphasis mine), ”...First, together with a group of ML researchers, we subjectively hand-labelled 70 occupations, assigning 1 if automatable, and 0 if not. … Our label assignments were based on eyeballing the O∗NET tasks and job description of each occupation.” Essentially this a bunch of guesses and opinions with little support in the way of evidence.