My daughter wants a career that survives AI — so I ranked them

A question that has been circulating a lot lately is this: Which jobs will still be around ten years from now, when artificial intelligence has changed everything? Yet the most frightening answer is that the “safe” jobs are not the ones we think they are. A former Microsoft executive, Babith Bhoopalan, was confronted with this question—not for a company report, but because his young daughter asked him, “Dad, how can I choose a job that won’t be wiped out by AI?” Many parents' instinctive reaction would be to reassure their child. Bhoopalan, on the other hand, did something different: he set out to study data, industry reports, and forecasts, and produced a veritable ranking of the professions most and least at risk. The most common mistake? Thinking that choosing a “technical” career is enough to be safe. Bhoopalan explains that it is precisely the most codifiable roles—such as accountants, junior lawyers, and even programmers—that are destined to be the first to be replaced. The paradox is that those who today advise a child to learn to code risk leading them straight into a path crowded with automation, not into a safe haven. Bhoopalan, who has spent years observing the tech industry from the inside, says that his daughter’s question struck him more than a thousand reports. Instead of giving her a vague answer, he decided to create a real map: Which jobs will withstand AI? On his list, the professions that stand out share one characteristic: they are profoundly “human.” Teachers who can inspire, nurses who read between the lines of emotions, creatives who know how to surprise. Bhoopalan cites a sobering statistic: according to a McKinsey analysis, between 40% and 50% of current work tasks can already be automated using today’s technology. Yet, there are professions where the irreplaceable component is relationship, empathy, and the ability to navigate ambiguity and conflict. Bhoopalan shares a personal anecdote: the moment when his daughter, looking at his list, asks him if being a doctor is really “AI-proof.” Bhoopalan replies that the technical aspect of diagnosis can be automated, but the human side— a patient's fear, a difficult decision to explain to a family—remains beyond the reach of algorithms. One aspect that many overlook is the risk of inaction: Bhoopalan insists that “wait and see” is not an option. Those who simply follow trends without understanding what makes the human contribution unique will find themselves at the mercy of change. There is an idea that is often missing from discussions about AI and work: the real anti-automation skill is not technical, but emotional. The ability to build trust, to lead difficult conversations, to innovate in ways that defy the rules. If you ask a group of young people today what they want to do “to be safe from AI,” almost all of them will answer with STEM jobs. Bhoopalan flips the perspective: “Look not only for what you can do, but above all for what no machine can feel.” The mistake is not preparing for technology, but thinking that’s enough. If you take away just one thought from Bhoopalan’s story, it could be this: To survive AI, you not only need to learn to code, but also to learn to be irreplaceably human. If this idea has changed the way you see the future of work, you can indicate it on Lara Notes with I'm In – choose whether it's an interest, an experience, or a belief you feel is yours. And if tomorrow you find yourself discussing with someone which jobs will survive AI, on Lara Notes you can tag that friend with Shared Offline: it’s your way of saying that the conversation really mattered. This insight comes from The Times and has saved you at least five minutes compared to reading the original article.