{"id":78663,"date":"2026-08-11T09:30:03","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T06:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/news\/ai-targets-office-jobs-anthropic-identifies-professions-most-at-risk\/"},"modified":"2026-08-11T09:41:07","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T06:41:07","slug":"ai-targets-office-jobs-anthropic-identifies-professions-most-at-risk","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/news\/ai-targets-office-jobs-anthropic-identifies-professions-most-at-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"AI Targets Office Jobs: Anthropic Identifies Professions Most at Risk"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Artificial intelligence is coming for offices, not factories. A new study by Anthropic has identified a clear pattern: the more a profession depends on information processing, the greater its potential exposure to automation. IT specialists, finance professionals, and lawyers top the list, while workers on construction sites and in the fields remain relatively safe for now.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Anthropic analysts examined the impact of <a href=\"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/how-a-neural-network-finds-deposits-that-geologists-miss\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/ai-nahodit-mestorozhdeniya\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">AI systems<\/a> across different areas of employment and identified a pattern that is difficult to ignore. In some categories of knowledge work, artificial intelligence could theoretically take over as much as 94% of tasks. The highest levels of AI exposure were recorded in information technology, finance, law, management, administrative work, engineering, marketing, and media.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By contrast, occupations that require physical presence and manual labor are significantly less affected for now. Construction, manufacturing, repair, agriculture, and transportation remain areas with relatively low automation potential.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, there is a wide gap between theoretical potential and actual use. Even in IT, where potential AI exposure reaches 94%, real-world adoption covers only about one-third of tasks. People are not disappearing from the workplace, but their jobs are changing rapidly.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The study&#8217;s main conclusion is that AI is not about to replace employees overnight. Instead, it is transforming the nature of work. Those who learn to use new tools and <a href=\"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/how-artificial-intelligence-makes-mining-smarter\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/intellektualnyj-pomoshhnik-geologa\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">integrate AI<\/a> into their daily workflows more quickly stand to benefit. Such employees can accomplish more in less time and become more valuable to employers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AI is not so much eliminating jobs as redistributing the tasks they contain. Office-based professions are changing the fastest, and the best defense against this wave is not to run from it, but to learn how to ride it.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-right has-small-font-size wp-block-paragraph\">Source: Anthropic<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Artificial intelligence is coming for offices, not factories. A new study by Anthropic has identified a clear pattern: the more a profession depends on information processing, the greater its potential exposure to automation. IT specialists, finance professionals, and lawyers top the list, while workers on construction sites and in the fields remain relatively safe for [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":78662,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"AI Could Automate Up to 94% of IT and Finance Tasks, Anthropic Finds","_seopress_titles_desc":"Anthropic finds knowledge work is more exposed to AI than manual labor. Learn where automation could reach 94% of tasks and why actual adoption still lags behind.","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[581,572],"tags":[574,658],"class_list":["post-78663","news","type-news","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","category-geology","category-it","tag-artificial-intelligence-in-geology","tag-geoscience-industry-trends"],"acf":[],"pbg_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya.webp",1672,941,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-150x84.webp",150,84,true],"medium":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-300x169.webp",300,169,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-768x432.webp",768,432,true],"large":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-1024x576.webp",1024,576,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-1536x864.webp",1536,864,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya.webp",1672,941,false],"bricks_large_16x9":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-1200x675.webp",1200,675,true],"bricks_large":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-1200x675.webp",1200,675,true],"bricks_large_square":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-1200x941.webp",1200,941,true],"bricks_medium":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-600x338.webp",600,338,true],"bricks_medium_square":["https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/nejroseti-ofisnye-professii-avtomatizaciya-600x600.webp",600,600,true]},"pbg_author_info":{"display_name":"Yulia Frolova","author_link":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/author\/giulia-nikolaevna\/","author_img":false},"pbg_comment_info":" No Comments","pbg_excerpt":"Artificial intelligence is coming for offices, not factories. A new study by Anthropic has identified a clear pattern: the more a profession depends on information processing, the greater its potential exposure to automation. IT specialists, finance professionals, and lawyers top the list, while workers on construction sites and in the fields remain relatively safe for&hellip;","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/78663","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78663"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/78663\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":78664,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/78663\/revisions\/78664"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/78662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}