Women are more exposed to AI right now than men. Not because we're more replaceable, because we're the ones sitting in office jobs. The physical, hands-on jobs are still mostly male and those show up as close to zero AI exposure. This is my interpretation after reading Anthropic's own research.

The numbers say it: jobs in the highest AI-exposure group are 16 points more female than jobs with zero exposure, almost 4x more likely to need a graduate degree and pay 47% more on average. Office, not factory.

If you work in IT, marketing, or consulting, and you're senior: THIS IS YOUR JOB we're talking about.

- Almost 4x more likely to need a graduate degree than a zero-exposure job (17.4% vs 4.5%)
- Pays 47% more on average

None of that means your job disappears. It means you can't assume you're ahead just because your job shows up as "exposed." Exposed just means the tool could touch your tasks. It says nothing about whether you're actually using it well and I see that gap constantly: full access to a capable tool, still used like a nice search bar, one prompt at a time, no real process, architecture, or flow behind it.

I train and find solutions for the ones most likely to already be in this exposed group. Do you see yourself here? You know the tools are there, but there's so much noise around it... Your boss asks you to use AI but you have no idea where to start. Or maybe your employees have the tools and you're seeing no improvement, just struggle.

If this is you, more exposed than you'd have guessed and not sure which side of that gap you're on: I'm happy to discuss and see if what you need is training, a workflow built with or without AI, or something more technical.

PS: same Anthropic report found about 30% of jobs studied, cooks, mechanics, bartenders, sit at close to zero AI exposure. Now's a good time to figure out where you actually stand.

Here is the link to the original report, so you can check it out for yourself: https://www.anthropic.com/research/labor-market-impacts