Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Clerical support workers · code 4229

Client information workers not elsewhere classified

AI can answer questions about claims. Deciding someone's case fairly is still a person.

Checking details and answering questions about benefits and claims are where AI could take a fair chunk. Interviewing applicants and referring them on are mostly out of its reach.

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

This unit group includes client information workers not included elsewhere in Minor Group 422: Client Information Workers. For instance, it includes workers who obtain and process information from clients needed to determine eligibility for services. In such cases tasks would include - (a) interviewing patients to obtain and process information required to provide hospital services; (b) interviewing applicants for public assistance to gather information pertinent to their application; (c) verifying the accuracy of information provided; (d) initiating procedures to grant, modify, deny or terminate assistance; (e) providing information and answering questions concerning benefits and claims procedures; (f) referring patients or applicants to other organizations if they are ineligible for services. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Eligibility interviewer - Eligibility specialist - Hospital admissions clerk

  • hotel concierge

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

58 / 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

335 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 6 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 41.6 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 41.6 = 58.4.

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 8.6 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?

Client information workers not elsewhere classified 58

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.

  • Answering questions about claims.
  • Verifying information.
  • Processing applications.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Interviewing applicants.
  • Decisions about eligibility.
  • Referring people for help.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • AI chatbots for public services.
  • Fraud detection.
  • Rules on automated decisions.

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: High

67 could do without you

It could take over a lot of this job on its own. It could help with 71 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

9 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 12 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

9 How
hands-on
12 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, matched to one US job .

finger skill 17.9 · hand skill 17.9 · cramped spaces 0 · 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 60, against an average of 42. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 60

    Verifying the accuracy of information provided

    Medium
  2. 56

    Providing information and answering questions concerning benefits and claims procedures

    Medium
  3. 38

    Initiating procedures to grant, modify, deny or terminate assistance

    Low
  4. 33

    Interviewing patients to obtain and process information required to provide hospital services

    Low
  5. 32

    Referring patients or applicants to other organizations if they are ineligible for services.

    Low
  6. 30

    Interviewing applicants for public assistance to gather information pertinent to their application

    Low

6 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
71
AI does it for you
67

Sidekick wins, by 4 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 5421, 5999

So, should benefits and information advisers be worried?

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

Parts of it are exposed. Verifying information and answering questions are rated Medium; decisions, patient interviews, referrals and interviewing applicants are Low. AI chat and automated checks take on routine questions; judgement and people 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 29 jobs in the “Clerical support workers” family, averaging 46. This one is above the family average.

Pit this against any other job →