LO
Social 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.
Starts at 12 because case-management systems had already digitised the records before this chart begins, and rises with the releases that could transcribe speech and summarise it reliably across languages — the documentation layer of the job. It stays low and climbs slowly because what sits above that layer is a relationship with a particular person and a judgement about safety that a named professional must defend, and the public body cited here, which has put these tools into over a hundred agencies, says it intends to keep those with people.
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
- 2026-09-24
- Basis of the task judgements
- 1 evidence-backed · 5 platform inference · 0 not enough evidence
- Verified events
- 2