LO
Container port worker — 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.
A high start, because container handling was already the most mechanised physical work on this site before any of this: gantry cranes, stacking systems and terminal operating software long predate language models, and none of what follows is built on them. The steady climb is one thing arriving repeatedly rather than a breakthrough — purpose-built automated terminals opening, each of which removes the driving seat inside its own fence and none of which changes the terminal next door. It does not flatten, because more of them keep opening; it does not steepen, because each one costs a decade and a port. The level stops short of the top for a reason visible on any quay: lashing is outdoors, at height, on a surface that moves, and nobody has published anything suggesting it is close.
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.
Method and sources#
- Assessment date
- 2026-09-21
- Basis of the task judgements
- 4 evidence-backed · 1 platform inference · 0 not enough evidence
- Verified events
- 2