EXPOSED
The daily substance of this job — literature review, prototype code, ablation scripts, results tables, paper and grant drafting — is exactly the text-and-code work frontier models already do at usable quality, and this occupation is uniquely exposed because it builds the tools that automate it. What resists is choosing which problems are worth attacking, designing experiments whose results are actually informative, and owning claims that a lab, a funder, or a product organization will bet on. The modal worker is a PhD researcher in industry or a federally funded lab, not a tenured professor; no license protects the role, and headcount concentrates around the people who set research agendas rather than execute them.
Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier. A 12 reflects the split inside a single working week: the implementation half — writing training loops, sweeping hyperparameters, running ablations, building the results table, drafting related-work sections and NSF/DARPA narrative boilerplate — is already being done by coding agents at rates a first-year grad student can't match, while the half that holds is formulating a hypothesis that isn't already saturated, deciding what baseline would actually falsify it, and recognizing when a benchmark gain is measurement artifact rather than signal; it sits below 14 because that formulation work is itself text, not an act the tools are structurally barred from.
Fully desk- and screen-based. A 3 covers the little that isn't a laptop and a cluster queue: standing up GPU nodes, physical robotics or HCI apparatus for the minority of researchers in those subfields, and conference travel — nothing that requires your hands in an uncontrolled setting, since the SLURM job runs whether you're in the building or not.
No licence, no signature requirement. A 2 is close to floor because no jurisdiction licenses computer scientists: your PhD is a credential, not a practice permit, and when a published result fails to replicate the consequence is a retraction and reputational damage, not a board action — the only formal exposure is IRB approval and export-control or classification rules on specific projects, which attach to the institution rather than to you personally.
Some relationship component. An 8 is earned by the parts of the role that are genuinely relational — the program officer who funds you because your last three grants delivered, the product VP who greenlights a research direction on your read of it, the coauthors and students who work with you and not a substitute — but the primary output is a paper or a repo evaluated blind on its merits, and citations accrue to the result regardless of who you are.
Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls. A 15 is where it lands because you are the person who says a research direction is worth eighteen months of a team's headcount and compute budget, that a safety or capability claim is sound enough to publish under an institution's name, and that a negative result should kill a program — calls with no procedure to follow, made on incomplete evidence, and traceable to you when they turn out wrong.
CNBC reports Meta is beginning layoffs this week, framed around the company's AI restructuring priorities.
Has AI actually changed your work?