LO
Midwife — 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
● 2 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 8 because electronic fetal monitors, ultrasound and electronic records were standard before this chart begins, while every trace was read, every birth attended and every check done by people. It climbs a little as computerised analysis of the fetal heart trace before labour, home monitoring and electronic maternity records spread. It stays low because computer reading of traces in labour did not improve outcomes in a large trial, guidelines ask for more human review rather than less, and births and emergencies are hands-on.
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
- 2 evidence-backed · 2 platform inference · 0 not enough evidence
- Verified events
- 5