Skip to content
man bot

Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers · code 6340

Subsistence fishers, hunters, trappers and gatherers

Most of this work never touches a screen, and AI doesn't change that.

AI barely touches any of the eight tasks, from gathering wild food and making tools and clothes to fetching water and trading at market.

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

Subsistence fishers, hunters, trappers and gatherers gather wild fruits, medicinal and other plants; hunt and trap animals; and catch fish and gather various forms of aquatic life in order to provide food, shelter and, in some cases, a minimum of cash income for themselves and their households. Tasks include - (a) gathering wild fruits, roots, medicinal and other plants; (b) hunting or trapping animals mainly to obtain meat, milk, hair, skin or other products; (c) fetching water and gathering firewood; (d) catching fish and gathering other forms of aquatic life; (e) storing or carrying out some processing of their produce; (f) building and maintaining houses and other shelters; (g) making tools, clothes and utensils for use by the household; (h) selling or bartering some products at local markets. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Hunter-gatherer - Subsistence collector - Subsistence diver - Subsistence fisher - Subsistence trapper Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Subsistence crop farmer - 6310 - Subsistence livestock farmer - 6320 - Livestock farm labourer - 9212 - Water and firewood collector - 9624 Notes Workers in a subsistence setting whose main tasks are fetching water and gathering firewood are classified in Unit Group 9624: Water and Firewood Collectors. Workers in subsistence agriculture who perform a limited range of simple and routine tasks, usually under the direction of others, are classified in the relevant unit group in Sub-major Group 92: Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Labourers.

88 / 100

Strongly holds up against AI

Most of this job still needs an actual human. AI would mostly be making the tea.

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: Not Exposed

26 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 8 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 11.8 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 11.8 = 88.2.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Not Exposed”: None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count.

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

Pinch of salt: this number is probably too rosy

It only asks what AI software could do, and this job is 71 out of 100 hands-on. A chatbot can't do that part. A robot might, one day, and nobody measures how close that is.

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Subsistence fishers, hunters, trappers and gatherers 88

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.

  • Checking weather and market prices on a phone.
  • Selling through mobile payments.
  • Getting advice about fish stocks or plants.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Catching, hunting and gathering by hand.
  • Knowing the land and water through experience.
  • Making tools, shelter and clothing.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Community conservation and monitoring roles.
  • Selling directly to buyers online.
  • Payments for protecting forests and fisheries.

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

20 could do without you

It could take over very little of the work on its own. It could help with 41 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Higher

71 how hands-on

Most of this job needs hands, a body or turning up. That's robot territory, and nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to give you a number. We won't make one up.

So could a robot do the physical part?

More fine handwork, and more time in cramped or awkward spots, than a typical hands-on job. That is exactly what machines find hardest: they do best in tidy, predictable places.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 41 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

71 How
hands-on
41 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Hands-on, fiddly work in tight spaces

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 42.9 · hand skill 41.1 · cramped spaces 38 · averaged · rule: hands-on 50+ · fiddly 39.4+

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 24, against an average of 12. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 24

    Selling or bartering some products at local markets.

    Very Low
  2. 14

    Making tools, clothes and utensils for use by the household

    Very Low
  3. 12

    Storing or carrying out some processing of their produce

    Very Low
  4. 12

    Hunting or trapping animals mainly to obtain meat, milk, hair, skin or other products

    Very Low
  5. 11

    Catching fish and gathering other forms of aquatic life

    Very Low
  6. 9

    Building and maintaining houses and other shelters

    Very Low
  7. 7

    Fetching water and gathering firewood

    Very Low
  8. 6

    Gathering wild fruits, roots and medicinal and other plants

    Very Low

8 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
41
AI does it for you
20

Sidekick wins, by 21 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 8999

So, should subsistence fishers, hunters and gatherers be worried?

Short answer: not really. Put the kettle on.

No. The most exposed task is selling at local markets, and even that rates Very Low. Phones can help with prices, weather and selling, but catching, gathering and building stay hands-on.

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 18 jobs in the “Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers” family, averaging 83. This one is above the family average.

Pit this against any other job →