Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed the landscape of work. What was once a buzzword reserved for science fiction is now integrated into our everyday lives—curating music playlists, answering customer queries, writing essays, generating images, and more. But as this technology matures, a critical issue is becoming clear: AI is taking over the wrong jobs.

Rather than easing the burden of the most labour-intensive, dangerous, or emotionally taxing professions, AI is increasingly replacing creative workers, artists, writers, musicians, and even educators—people in roles that require the human touch. This shift raises vital questions about not just which jobs are being automated, but which jobs should be.

When AI development began accelerating in the 2010s, the promise was exciting and hopeful. Machines would take over repetitive, manual tasks—factory work, data entry, transportation—allowing humans to pursue more meaningful work. The idea was simple: let AI handle the mundane so that people can do what only people can do—create, care, imagine, lead.

Early automation did focus on physically demanding or time-consuming tasks. Robotic arms in manufacturing, software for accounting, and chatbots for basic customer service were welcomed as tools to boost productivity. But recent advancements, especially in generative AI, have started targeting professions that involve empathy, intuition, and emotion—jobs once believed to be "AI-proof."

Perhaps the most ironic and troubling outcome of AI expansion is its encroachment into the creative economy. AI models can now write novels, compose music, create artwork, design clothes, and even act in videos using deepfake technology. This should be alarming, not because AI is becoming better than humans, but because it’s being used to replace rather than assist.

Creative professionals—writers, artists, musicians—do not produce work the way a machine does. Their output is informed by life experiences, emotional depth, culture, pain, joy, and context. When AI imitates creativity, it does so based on patterns, not lived experience. The result may be impressive, but it lacks soul. Yet, many companies are choosing AI-generated content over human-made work because it's faster and cheaper.

This trend devalues not only creative work but also the human experience behind it. Instead of using AI to support artists (like speeding up editing processes or generating drafts), many industries are eliminating them altogether. We’re replacing visionaries with algorithms—and calling it progress.

While AI replaces songwriters and copywriters, many dangerous, underpaid jobs remain untouched. Why hasn’t AI taken over more of the exhausting jobs in sanitation, agriculture, mining, or eldercare? These are roles where automation could save lives and improve well-being, yet they remain human-reliant.

Examples can be given of the following areas:

• Healthcare support workers: AI can assist doctors in diagnosis, but most caretakers, nurses, and support staff still work long hours with minimal support.
• Sanitation workers: Robots could handle hazardous waste or sewer cleaning, but investment in this area is minimal.
• Construction and mining: Autonomous machinery exists, but hasn't scaled significantly in the most dangerous zones.
• Food service and delivery: These remain some of the lowest-paid jobs with minimal AI support, despite being physically demanding.

These roles are vital, yet often underappreciated. If the goal of AI is to reduce human suffering and increase efficiency, these should be the first industries to see significant transformation.

One major reason AI is taking over the “wrong” jobs is economics. Companies are less interested in societal benefits and more focused on profit. Replacing a highly skilled designer or a writer with an AI tool reduces payroll significantly. But replacing a warehouse worker with a robot may require a large upfront investment and infrastructure changes.

Additionally, creative work is intangible and subjective, making it easier to automate without instant backlash. It's easier to pass off a machine-generated design than it is to replace a nurse who offers emotional comfort to a terminally ill patient.

This profit-driven model reveals a flaw in how we implement technology. When profit is prioritized over purpose, AI becomes a tool of displacement rather than empowerment.

The loss of creative jobs to AI isn't just an economic issue—it’s a human one. Creative work gives people a sense of identity, fulfilment, and emotional release. Replacing that with code erodes the fabric of human expression.

Furthermore, the knowledge that machines can mimic your talent breeds insecurity and existential doubt. Artists are already reporting declining job opportunities and struggling with the feeling of being “replaceable.” AI doesn’t get depressed. It doesn’t grow. But humans do, and taking away outlets for self-expression has consequences for mental health and societal well-being.

The future of AI should not be one where it replaces what makes us human. Instead, it should support us. Here’s what that could look like:

• Assistive AI: Help writers brainstorm, not replace them. Help designers prototype, not remove them.
• Safety AI: Be deployed in hazardous environments where humans risk injury or death.
• Accessibility AI: Help those with disabilities communicate, move, or work more independently.
• Efficiency AI: Streamline bureaucratic processes in government, education, and healthcare—not eliminate teachers and caregivers.

In short, AI should be used as a tool to amplify humanity, not imitate or replace it.

We urgently need stronger ethical frameworks and regulatory oversight around the deployment of AI. Governments and institutions must ask not just Can this be automated, but Should it be?

Creative industries should have protections. Artists should have the right to opt out of having their work used to train models. Workers in undervalued sectors should be prioritized for AI assistance. Without regulation, market forces will continue to push AI into the easiest, not the most necessary, directions.

AI is not inherently bad. It's a powerful, revolutionary tool. But like all tools, its impact depends on how we use it.

Right now, we’re using AI to replace the very parts of life that bring color, emotion, and meaning—our art, our stories, our songs. Meanwhile, people still suffer in jobs that are physically draining and mentally exhausting. We have the balance all wrong.

AI should not be here to take away our creativity. It should be here to give us more time, more health, and more opportunity to live fully human lives. Until we redirect AI's purpose toward those goals, we risk building a future that’s efficient, but hollow.

.    .    .