Search

The effects of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) on the job market are matters of great social concern. Economists and technology experts are debating at what rate, and to what extent, technology could be used to replace humans in occupations, and what actions could mitigate the unemployment that would result. To this end, it is important to predict which jobs could be automated in the future and what workers could do to move to occupations at lower risk of automation. Here, we calculate the automation risk of almost 1000 existing occupations by quantitatively assessing to what extent robotics and AI abilities can replace human abilities required for those jobs. Furthermore, we introduce a method to find, for any occupation, alternatives that maximize the reduction in automation risk while minimizing the retraining effort. We apply the method to the U.S. workforce composition and show that it could substantially reduce the workers' automation risk, while the associated retraining effort would be moderate. Governments could use the proposed method to evaluate the unemployment risk of their populations and to adjust educational policies. Robotics companies could use it as a tool to better understand market needs, and members of the public could use it to identify the easiest route to reposition themselves on the job market.

Background: As part of the 2009-2010 Massachusetts Dental Society Leadership Institute, two oral health screening and prevention education programs were conducted at institutions in Massachusetts that serve individuals with special health care needs (ISHCN)., Methods: Members of the Leadership Institute class of 2009-2010 built relationships with two institutions that served individuals with ISHCN-one that housed residents with special health care needs and another that served as a day-care facility. Oral health screenings were conducted at both institutions. Retrospective analysis of the data from the two screenings is presented in the current study., Results: Forty-four oral health screenings were conducted at the organization that acted as a daycare/drop-in center for ISHCN who reside in a family home, and 21 screenings were conducted of ISHCN at a residential facility. Among those residing in family homes, 23 percent needed urgent care whereas only 5 percent who were living in an institution needed urgent care. Overall, a total of 40 percent had untreated caries and 48 percent were free of caries based on the oral health screenings. Sixteen percent of subjects were in pain from their mouth at the time of the screenings.