This App Gives Your Job an AI Job Survival Score

There is now an app that will grade, in seconds, how safe your job is from artificial intelligence. AI Job Analyzer Pro, from the South Florida company NMH2 Media LLC, launched on the Apple App Store and Google Play on October 12, according to the launch announcement. Type in an occupation or paste a job description, and the app returns an AI job survival score, a plain-language explanation of how AI could affect specific tasks, and recommendations for adapting to technological change.

The app was built by entrepreneur Matari Howard, a former math teacher with experience in technology development and financial services. It scores occupations by their exposure to AI assistance, automation, or transformation, while also weighing work that involves human judgment, interpersonal communication, physical tasks, and situational decision-making. "AI is moving quickly, and people deserve a simple way to ask what it could mean for their own work," Howard said in the announcement. The AI job survival score itself is described as an informational estimate of potential AI exposure, not a prediction of job loss or a guarantee of future employment. Beyond the number, the app pushes users to examine changing workplace demands and identify professional development that strengthens career adaptability.

How risk scores get built

Howard's app is part of a new wave of AI risk calculators, and TechBullion's breakdown of how the scores are built explains what is inside them. The most widely shared free tool, built by the resume platform Kickresume, covers seven hundred fifty-six US occupations and runs on Anthropic's Economic Index, a dataset that measures how people actually use the Claude model at work. Each real conversation is mapped to a task in the US Labor Department's O*NET occupation database, producing a picture of which jobs lean on AI and how heavily. Kickresume then adjusts the base score by up to a quarter depending on how much a role depends on creativity, human interaction, and physical dexterity.

That method is grounded in observed behavior rather than a forecaster's guess, which TechBullion calls a genuine improvement over older calculators. It is also the source of the biggest misunderstanding. Roughly fifty-seven percent of the AI usage Anthropic measures is augmentation, meaning the model works alongside a person who stays in the loop, while forty-three percent is automation. More than half of the signal feeding these AI job survival scores is AI helping someone do their existing job faster. Roughly a third of the occupations have no meaningful usage data behind their scores at all; those numbers are estimates layered on top of the adjustment model.

What the research says behind the number

The most rigorous evidence behind any AI job survival score comes from a March 2026 paper by two economists inside Anthropic, Maxim Massenkoff and Peter McCrory, on the labor market impact of AI. For computer and mathematical occupations, the paper puts theoretical exposure at ninety-four percent and observed usage at thirty-three percent. Only about seven and a half percent of the nearly eighteen thousand tasks in the O*NET database showed any measurable AI usage at all. The capability exists; adoption is far behind it.

The paper also found no clear spike in unemployment among workers in the most exposed occupations. The measurable effect is narrower: hiring of workers aged twenty-two to twenty-five into high-exposure roles has slowed by roughly fourteen percent since ChatGPT arrived. According to the economists' analysis, the workers with the highest measured AI usage are, on average, highly educated, experienced, and earning well above the median. A separate survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that more than ninety percent of executives reported no measurable effect of AI on their own firm's employment after years of adoption, and eighty-nine percent reported none on productivity. That gap between capability and adoption is also visible in freelance work, where a recent report on AI freelancers facing a client squeeze found clients using AI tools to negotiate lower rates even as the work itself keeps growing.

Reading your score without panic

The calculators do not even agree with each other. Action Network's tool ranks computer programmers as the single most at-risk occupation at forty-five percent implied odds; Kickresume puts software developers at twenty-five percent, well down its list. Same database, same broad method, opposite conclusions about the most discussed job in the economy. When two carefully constructed tools land that far apart, TechBullion argues, nobody has a reliable method for turning task exposure into an AI job survival score for the next five years.

That is the honest way to read an AI job survival score: as a description of the present, not a prediction of the future. A sixty-three percent rating, the example TechBullion cites for customer service representatives, means those tasks are the kind people already hand to models in volume today. It does not mean a sixty-three percent chance the role disappears. The question that matters for any individual is what share of their week consists of work a model cannot do, and whether they spend most of their time on that part.

For Gen Z entering the workforce, the more urgent signal is the entry-level pipeline, where hiring into exposed fields has slowed while return-to-office mandates keep rewriting the rules of work and young workers report record burnout. The score is the starting point, as Howard puts it. The bigger purpose is deciding what to do next, and the research says the answer is to watch the tasks, not the number. You can find the app at the AI Job Analyzer Pro website.