Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Technicians and associate professionals · code 3315

Valuers and loss assessors

AI can write the valuation report. Standing in a flooded kitchen is still a loss adjuster.

Writing valuation reports and assessing damage and loss are where AI could take a fair chunk. Judging what things are worth is mostly out of its reach, and inspecting items in person it barely touches.

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

Valuers and loss assessors value property and various goods and assess losses covered by insurance policies. Tasks include - (a) determining the quality or value of raw materials, real estate, industrial equipment, personal and household effects, works of art, gems and other objects; (b) assessing the extent of damage or loss and liabilities of insurance companies and underwriters for losses covered by insurance policies; (c) obtaining records of sales and value of similar items or property; (d) inspecting items or property to evaluate condition, size and construction; (e) preparing reports of value, outlining the estimation factors and methods used. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Appraiser - Claims assessor - Claims inspector - Insurance assessor - Real estate appraiser - Valuer Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Auctioneer - 3339

  • loss adjuster
  • gemmologist
  • foreclosure specialist
  • personal property appraiser
  • insurance claims handler
  • property appraiser
  • real estate surveyor
  • insurance fraud investigator

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

55 / 100

Changing significantly

AI could do a real share of the everyday tasks. The job is changing shape, not vanishing.

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 2

355 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 5 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 44.9 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 44.9 = 55.1.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 2”: A good share of the tasks are affected.

This job rates 29.9 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?

Valuers and loss assessors 55

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.

  • Valuation reports.
  • Comparable sales data.
  • Routine claims assessment.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Inspecting property and damage.
  • Judging unusual items.
  • Dealing with people after a loss.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Automated valuation models.
  • Photo and drone claims.
  • More climate-related claims.

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: Medium

44 could do without you

It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 72 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

30 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 19 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

30 How
hands-on
19 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 4 US jobs .

finger skill 17.6 · hand skill 14.9 · cramped spaces 23.9 · 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 68, against an average of 45. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 68

    Preparing reports of value, outlining the estimation factors and methods used.

    Medium
  2. 55

    Assessing the extent of damage or loss and liabilities of insurance companies and underwriters for losses covered by insurance policies

    Medium
  3. 51

    Obtaining records of sales and value of similar items or property

    Medium
  4. 33

    Determining the quality or value of raw materials, real estate, industrial equipment, personal and household effects, works of art, gems and other objects

    Low
  5. 18

    Inspecting items or property to evaluate condition, size and construction

    Very Low

5 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
72
AI does it for you
44

Sidekick wins, by 29 points.

How good a match is this?

2 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2245, 5996

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?

Tiny sample alert This job makes up 0.05% of all the conversations: a tiny slice. People using AI for a job isn't the same as AI being able to do it.

Out of every 100 conversations

51
49

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.

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 valuers and loss adjusters be worried?

Short answer: not worried, but paying attention. The job is changing.

Parts of it are exposed. Valuation reports, assessing losses and gathering comparable sales are rated Medium; judging quality and value is Low; inspecting property rates Very Low. AI valuation models take on routine cases; inspections and judgement 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

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 82 jobs in the “Technicians and associate professionals” family, averaging 66. This one is below the family average.

Pit this against any other job →