The human touch: Five surprising jobs that AI can't replace. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of loaded, humorous, or exaggerated wording that frames one side more positively or negatively without neutral description.

Examples: - "As artificial intelligence marches across the employment landscape like a caffeinated HR manager with a spreadsheet full of redundancies" – portrays AI as an aggressive, almost comically ruthless force. - "Great Algorithmic Purge" – suggests a sweeping, catastrophic elimination of jobs. - "The dystopian tinge here is not just about job loss—it's about the slow erosion of the quirks, imperfections, and improvisations that make human work so maddeningly delightful." – frames AI as a threat to cherished human qualities. - "AI may be efficient, but it is not eccentric." – sets up a simple, emotionally appealing contrast. These phrases are clearly stylistic and humorous, but they still frame AI in a negative, somewhat one-dimensional way and human workers in a romanticized way.

4 suggestions

Replace highly loaded metaphors with more neutral descriptions, e.g., instead of "marches across the employment landscape like a caffeinated HR manager with a spreadsheet full of redundancies," use "is rapidly being adopted across many sectors, leading to significant changes in employment."

Rephrase "Great Algorithmic Purge" to something like "large-scale automation of certain tasks and roles" to avoid catastrophic framing.

Balance the sentence "The dystopian tinge here..." by acknowledging potential benefits as well as costs, e.g., "While automation can increase efficiency, it may also reduce some of the quirks and improvisations that many people value in human work."

Change "AI may be efficient, but it is not eccentric" to a more precise, less romanticized contrast, such as "AI systems are designed for consistency and efficiency, whereas many human workers bring idiosyncratic styles and personal touches to their roles."

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex issue (AI capabilities and job displacement) to simple, absolute claims without nuance or conditions.

Examples: - "No matter how many sensors you strap onto a robot, it cannot replicate the intuitive pressure of a thumb trained by decades of kneading Kerala's knottiest backs." – implies an absolute, permanent limit on AI/robotic massage without acknowledging ongoing advances in haptics, robotics, and personalization. - "The masseur's art is part science, part sorcery, wholly resistant to digitisation. You can't outsource intuition to a motherboard." – presents the job as completely immune to digitization, which is speculative. - "Until robots learn empathy and the art of pouring Diet Coke at 35,000 feet without spilling, this job is safe." – suggests a binary: either full human-like empathy or no replacement, ignoring partial automation or hybrid roles. - "So what will remain? Jobs that require touch, trust and tact. Professions that depend on empathy, improvisation and emotional nuance." – implies that these categories are fully safe, without discussing that AI may encroach on aspects of these too, or that some such jobs may still be automated in part.

4 suggestions

Qualify absolute statements with probability or time-frame, e.g., "At least for now, robots struggle to replicate the intuitive pressure..." instead of "cannot replicate."

Change "wholly resistant to digitisation" to something like "currently difficult to fully digitise" or "only partially amenable to digitisation."

Rephrase "You can't outsource intuition to a motherboard" as "It remains challenging to capture human intuition in current AI systems."

Modify the conclusion to acknowledge uncertainty: "Jobs that heavily rely on touch, trust and tact may be more resistant to automation in the near term, especially where empathy and improvisation are central."

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented without evidence, data, or clear sourcing, especially about what AI can or cannot do and which jobs are safe or doomed.

Examples: - "We already know that AI can write sonnets, diagnose diseases, and beat humans at chess, as well as draft passive-aggressive email." – mostly true in broad strokes, but no distinction is made between experimental, narrow, and production-level capabilities. - "No matter how many sensors you strap onto a robot, it cannot replicate the intuitive pressure..." – strong claim about impossibility, no evidence. - "Until robots learn empathy... this job is safe." – safety of the job is asserted without labor market data or projections. - "Bank tellers are already halfway to obsolescence." – a strong claim about a profession’s trajectory without statistics or references. - "Even priests at weddings may face competition." followed by a detailed scenario of a robot priest – speculative, presented as plausible without clarifying it is hypothetical. - "So what will remain? Jobs that require touch, trust and tact." – broad prediction about the future of work without supporting research.

5 suggestions

Add references or at least mention sources, e.g., "Studies in healthcare AI suggest that algorithms can assist in diagnosis for certain conditions, though they are typically used alongside human doctors."

Qualify impossibility claims: "It may be difficult for current robots to replicate..." instead of "cannot replicate."

For job safety statements, add uncertainty and context: "Many analysts expect that roles like cabin crew may change but not disappear quickly, because they rely heavily on in-person service and conflict management."

For "Bank tellers are already halfway to obsolescence," add data or soften: "The number of traditional bank teller roles has declined in many countries due to ATMs and online banking."

Explicitly mark speculative scenarios as such: "One could imagine a future robot priest who..." or "A hypothetical system might..."

Appeal to emotion

Using emotional, nostalgic, or fear-inducing language to persuade rather than relying on balanced reasoning or evidence.

Examples: - "Great Algorithmic Purge" – evokes fear of mass job loss. - "The dystopian tinge here is not just about job loss—it's about the slow erosion of the quirks, imperfections, and improvisations that make human work so maddeningly delightful." – appeals to nostalgia and fear of losing human charm. - "Let us celebrate and protect these, as reminders that in a world of predictable perfection, it is the unpredictable human that still matters." – a rallying call that frames AI as "predictable perfection" and humans as uniquely valuable, appealing to identity and pride. - Descriptions of human workers as "urban oracle," "human firewall against chaos," etc., create a romantic, heroic image of human roles.

4 suggestions

Balance emotional language with factual context, e.g., after "Great Algorithmic Purge," add: "While some roles are likely to be automated, others may be transformed or newly created, according to [source]."

Rephrase "dystopian tinge" to a more neutral concern: "This raises concerns not only about job loss but also about how automation might change the character of everyday work."

Modify the closing call to action to acknowledge trade-offs: "We may want to pay particular attention to preserving roles where human presence and judgment are central, even as we adopt AI for tasks where it clearly improves safety or efficiency."

Reduce heroic metaphors and describe functions more plainly, e.g., "Man Friday" as "a personal assistant who manages logistics, schedules, and interpersonal dynamics."

Framing effect / One-sided framing

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes one interpretation (human uniqueness and AI threat) while downplaying or omitting alternative perspectives.

The article consistently frames: - Human roles as irreplaceable, quirky, emotionally rich ("part therapist, part gymnast, part hostage negotiator"; "curator of impulse"; "human firewall against chaos"). - AI as efficient but cold, threatening, or comically inadequate ("polite dashboard voice named Rajeev 2.0"; "robot priest" with compatibility score; "AI may be efficient, but it is not eccentric"). Benefits of AI (safety in driving, reduced human error in banking, accessibility, cost reduction) are mentioned only lightly or humorously, not seriously weighed against the costs. There is no discussion of how AI might augment rather than replace these jobs, or how humans and AI might collaborate.

4 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge potential benefits of AI in each domain, e.g., for chauffeurs: "Autonomous vehicles could reduce accidents and make transport more accessible, though they may also reduce demand for human drivers."

Add examples of hybrid models where AI supports rather than replaces humans, such as cabin crew using AI tools for scheduling, translation, or safety monitoring.

Include a brief counterpoint section: "Some researchers argue that even jobs involving empathy and touch may be reshaped rather than preserved unchanged, as AI tools assist with planning, diagnostics, or personalization."

Clarify that the piece is a subjective reflection: e.g., "From my perspective, the roles that feel most resistant to automation are those that rely heavily on..."

Cherry-picking / Selective examples

Choosing specific, vivid examples that support the thesis while ignoring counterexamples or broader patterns.

The article highlights: - Jobs portrayed as safe: ayurvedic masseur, air-hostess, shop assistant, Man Friday, parliamentarian. - Jobs portrayed as threatened: personal chauffeur, bank teller, priest. These are chosen for narrative and humorous value, not because they represent the overall labor market or the most studied cases of automation. There is no mention of large categories like manufacturing, call centers, software development, or healthcare support, nor of jobs where AI has already had mixed or limited impact. This selection supports the narrative that "touch, trust, tact" jobs are safe, without examining exceptions (e.g., AI in therapy chatbots, robotic surgery, automated retail).

4 suggestions

Add a sentence acknowledging that the chosen jobs are illustrative, not comprehensive: "These examples are deliberately anecdotal and playful; the broader picture of AI and work is more complex."

Mention at least one counterexample where AI has made inroads into seemingly human-centric tasks (e.g., mental health chatbots, automated customer service) to show nuance.

Reference broader research or reports on automation risk across sectors to contextualize the anecdotal examples.

Clarify that the categories "touch, trust, tact" are tendencies rather than guarantees: "Jobs that rely heavily on these qualities may be harder to automate fully, though parts of them can still be supported or altered by AI."

Narrative fallacy

Constructing a coherent, emotionally satisfying story (humans vs. robots, quirks vs. efficiency) and treating it as if it fully explains a complex phenomenon.

The article builds a story: AI is an efficient, slightly menacing force; human jobs with touch, trust, and tact are the last bastions of humanity; some other jobs are clearly doomed. This narrative is engaging but glosses over: - Variability within each job (e.g., some parts of a shop assistant’s role are already automated). - Economic, regulatory, and cultural factors that influence automation. - The possibility that AI may change job content rather than simply replace or spare entire roles. The conclusion "So what will remain? Jobs that require touch, trust and tact" is a neat narrative endpoint but not a rigorously supported conclusion.

4 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge the story-like nature of the argument: "This is, of course, a simplified story about a very complex future."

Add caveats about within-job variation: "Even in these roles, some tasks may be automated while others remain deeply human."

Mention non-technological factors (regulation, cost, culture) that affect whether AI actually replaces or augments jobs.

Soften the definitive tone of the final answer: "One plausible view is that roles centered on touch, trust and tact may endure longer, though they too will likely evolve alongside AI."