Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Professionals · code 2111

Physicists and astronomers

AI can crunch the telescope data. Asking the right question about the universe is still science.

AI could take a fair chunk of four of the eleven tasks, led by analysing experiments and modelling data from space. Testing equipment is mostly out of its reach, and safely giving patients radiation it barely touches.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

Physicists and astronomers conduct research and improve or develop concepts, theories and operational methods concerning matter, space, time, energy, forces and fields and the interrelationship between these physical phenomena. They apply scientific knowledge relating to physics and astronomy in industrial, medical, military or other fields. Tasks include - (a) conducting research and improving or developing concepts, theories, instrumentation, software and operational methods related to physics and astronomy; (b) conducting experiments, tests and analyses on the structure and properties of matter in fields such as mechanics, thermodynamics, electronics, communications, power generation and distribution, aerodynamics, optics and lasers, remote sensing, medicine, sonics, magnetism and nuclear physics; (c) evaluating results of investigations and experiments and expressing conclusions, mainly using mathematical techniques and models; (d) applying principles, techniques and processes to develop or improve industrial, medical, military and other practical applications of the principles and techniques of physics or astronomy; (e) ensuring the safe and effective delivery of radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) to patients to achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic result as prescribed by a medical practitioner; (f) ensuring the accurate measurement and characterization of physical quantities used in medical applications; (g) testing, commissioning and evaluating equipment used in applications such as imaging, medical treatment and dosimetry; (h) advising and consulting with medical practitioners and other health care professionals in optimizing the balance between the beneficial and deleterious effects of radiation; (i) observing, analysing and interpreting celestial phenomena and developing methods, numerical models and techniques to extend knowledge of fields such as navigation, satellite communication, space exploration, celestial bodies and cosmic radiation; (j) developing, implementing and maintaining standards and protocols for the measurement of physical phenomena and for the use of nuclear technology in industrial and medical applications; (k) preparing scientific papers and reports. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Astronomer - Medical physicist - Nuclear physicist - Physicist Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Radiation oncologist - 2212 - Radiologist - 2212 - Specialist physician (nuclear medicine) - 2212 - Radiographer - 3211 Note It should be noted that, while they are appropriately classified in this unit group with other physicists, medical physicists are considered to be an integral part of the health workforce alongside those occupations classified in Sub-major Group 22: Health Professionals and others classified in a number of other unit groups in Major Group 2: Professionals.

  • astronomer
  • physicist
  • cosmologist

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

62 / 100

Mostly holds up against AI

AI can take a few chores off your plate, but most of the day is still yours.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Exposed: Gradient 1

310 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 11 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 38 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 38 = 62.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 1”: The mildest of the ILO’s four “exposed” groups.

This job rates 21.5 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Physicists and astronomers 62

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Data analysis and modelling.
  • Writing papers and reports.
  • Simulations.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Designing experiments.
  • Interpreting surprising results.
  • Medical physics and patient safety.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • AI-assisted discovery.
  • Quantum technology.
  • Fusion and energy research.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Low

33 could do without you

It could take over very little of the work on its own. It could help with 75 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

22 how hands-on

Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 11 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

22 How
hands-on
11 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, averaged across 2 US jobs .

finger skill 17.9 · hand skill 4.5 · cramped spaces 9.1 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 56, against an average of 38. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 56

    Evaluating results of investigations and experiments and expressing conclusions, mainly using mathematical techniques and models

    Medium
  2. 54

    Observing, analysing and interpreting celestial phenomena and developing methods, numerical models and techniques to extend knowledge of fields such as navigation, satellite communication, space exploration, celestial bodies and cosmic radiation

    Medium
  3. 51

    Conducting research and improving or developing concepts, theories, instrumentation, software and operational methods related to physics and astronomy

    Medium
  4. 51

    Preparing scientific papers and reports.

    Medium
  5. 46

    Applying principles, techniques and processes to develop or improve industrial, medical, military and other practical applications of the principles and techniques of physics or astronomy

    Low
  6. 35

    Developing, implementing and maintaining standards and protocols for the measurement of physical phenomena and for the use of nuclear technology in industrial and medical applications

    Low
  7. 29

    Conducting experiments, tests and analyses on the structure and properties of matter in fields such as mechanics, thermodynamics, electronics, communications, power generation and distribution, aerodynamics, optics and lasers, remote sensing, medicine, sonics, magnetism, and nuclear physics

    Low
  8. 26

    Ensuring the accurate measurement and characterization of physical quantities used in medical applications

    Low
  9. 26

    Advising and consulting with medical practitioners and other health care professionals in optimizing the balance between the beneficial and deleterious effects of radiation

    Low
  10. 25

    Testing, commissioning and evaluating equipment used in applications such as imaging, medical treatment and dosimetry

    Low
  11. 19

    Ensuring the safe and effective delivery of radiation (ionising and non-ionising) to patients to achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic result as prescribed by a medical practitioner

    Very Low

11 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
75
AI does it for you
33

Sidekick wins, by 42 points.

How good a match is this?

One Australian job matches this one closely, so this is about as reliable as it gets here.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2349

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Out of every 100 conversations

49
51

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 0.2% of the conversations.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 2 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should physicists and astronomers be worried?

Short answer: not much. Some of the chores will change, and good riddance.

Parts of the work are changing. Evaluating results, analysing observations, research and writing papers are rated Medium; applications, standards, experiments and medical physics are Low; delivering radiation to patients rates Very Low. AI speeds up analysis and writing; discovery and responsibility stay human.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

None of the new jobs we've written up start from here yet. Could be you're the first. See the jobs AI is creating →

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” family, averaging 61. This one is above the family average.

Pit this against any other job →