LO
Machinist / CNC machinist — how we know
The page itself gives the judgements. This one gives what they rest on: which technologies bear on the work, how the estimate moved since language models reached the public, and the method behind both.
Which technologies matter here#
Four separate signals. They are deliberately not added together — a job exposed to two technologies is not twice as exposed.
How it got here#
The index is not a static number. This is where it would have sat at each capability checkpoint since ChatGPT — reconstructed, and labelled as such.
—— this stretch contains a verified event- - - no event in this stretch — reconstruction only0 = no task exposed, 100 = every task exposed
● 5 verified events for this occupation, plotted at the date it happened — the parts of the line near a marker are anchored to something checkable.
Starts at 22 because CNC machine tools and CAM software were already standard before this chart begins, while people set up, tended and measured every job. It climbs as robot loading, in-machine measurement and unattended runs spread, and as official forecasts move jobs from tending machines to programming them. It stays below the middle because setup and first parts still need people, and language models write machine code only for simple parts under expert supervision.
A flat line is not a forecast of safety. It says which tasks automation has reached so far — the occupations that moved least here are the ones where the constraint is physical or regulatory, and both of those can change.
Written about this#
These pieces argue from the same records this page holds, and each of their sections names what it rests on.
Method and sources#
- Assessment date
- 2026-10-01
- Basis of the task judgements
- 0 evidence-backed · 4 platform inference · 0 not enough evidence
- Verified events
- 5