I'm sorry, as someone who genuinely likes AI, I still have to say that I have to call bullshit on Microsoft's study on this. I use ChatGPT all the time, but it's not going to "replace web developers" because that's almost a statement that doesn't even make sense.
You see all these examples like "I got ChatGPT to make a JS space invaders game!" and that's cool and all, but that's sort of missing a pretty crucial part: the beginning of a new project is almost always the easiest and most fun part of the project. Showing me a robot that can make a project that pretty much any intern could do isn't so impressive to me.
Show me a bot that can maintain a project over the course of months and update it based on the whims of a bunch of incompetent MBAs who scope creep a million new features and who don't actually know what they want, and I might start worrying. I don't know anything about the other careers so I can't speak to that, but I'd be pretty surprised if "Mathematician" is at severe risk as well.
Honestly, is there any reason for Microsoft to even be honest with this shit? Of course they want to make it look like their AI is so advanced because that makes them look better and their stock price might go up. If they're wrong, it's not like it matters, corporations in America are never honest.
I agree with you, but one correction: the bullshit is on the twitter post that this article links to (in the first sentence) and by extension on the article.
The paper itself [1] doesn't say "replace" anywhere: the purpose was to measure where AI has an "impact". They even say (in the discussion)
Ok, good. Something definitely seems amiss when a bunch of CS researchers are reporting that "mathematicians" are one of the most "replaceable" (good luck designing a new LLM without any knowledge of math).Overall this post says something about the sad state of twitter and search: I had to dig though quite a few articles which repeated this job replacement crap before I could even find the title of the article (which was then easy to find on arXiv). And go figure, the authors didn't mean to make the statement everyone says they made.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.07935v1
Oh! Fair enough, I guess I am part of the problem in this particular case, because I uncritically assumed that someone on Twitter was telling the truth.
Looking through the actual paper now, yeah I think actually more or less agree with the writers.