By Kier Scott, Aspyr Director of Policy & Research

A recent Harvard Business School article caught our attention because it points to a pattern that feels familiar to what we are beginning to see locally: artificial intelligence may not be eliminating work in a simple, one-directional way. Instead, it appears to be changing which tasks employers value, how jobs are structured, and which skills are becoming more important as technology becomes part of everyday work.

The Harvard article “Enhance or Eliminate_ How AI Will Likely Change These Jobs”, highlights research showing that job postings for occupations with more structured and repetitive tasks declined after the public launch of ChatGPT, while demand grew for jobs that involve more analytical, technical, or creative work that may be enhanced by AI rather than replaced by it. The article also notes that roles most likely to be augmented by AI often still require human involvement, especially judgment, decision-making, interpersonal communication, and hands-on technical skills.

That distinction matters. For workforce development, the question may not simply be, “Which jobs are going away?” A more useful question may be, “Which skills are moving, and where are they showing up next?”

That is the connection we are beginning to explore at Aspyr. In our own review of occupations projected to decline, we found that many of the same core skills continue to appear across different jobs and industries. Communication, customer service, attention to detail, monitoring, critical thinking, computer literacy, and mechanical aptitude showed up as important competencies across many roles, even when the occupations themselves may be facing long-term decline.

To us, that suggests something worth paying attention to. A declining occupation does not necessarily mean a worker’s skills are declining in value. In many cases, the skills behind those jobs may still be highly relevant, but they may need to be applied in a different setting, paired with new tools, or connected to a different career pathway. 

For example, customer service skills can translate into healthcare support roles. Clerical and administrative skills can support work in business operations, IT support, or data management. Manufacturing experience can provide a foundation for advanced manufacturing, robotics support, or industrial automation roles where human oversight and problem-solving still matter. 

The Harvard research gives us a useful national signal, but our next step is to look more closely at the local data. We want to better understand whether the same pattern is showing up in Central Ohio: whether some jobs are seeing pressure because of automation, whether other roles are being strengthened by AI, and whether the skills workers already have can help them move into better-aligned opportunities.

What makes this interesting is that it pushes the conversation beyond fear of AI and toward a more practical workforce question. If AI is changing tasks more than it is eliminating skills, then our work becomes clearer. We need to help workers identify the value of the skills they already have, help employers recognize transferable skills more clearly, and build training strategies that support movement into roles where technology and human capability work together.

In other words, the future of work may not only be about new jobs. It may also be about helping people see how their existing skills move with them.