Work out which parts of your job are still yours.

The question everyone asks is the wrong one.

“Will AI take my job” has no useful answer. Every tool built around it hands you a percentage and stops, which tells you how to feel and not what to do. Jobs are not atomic anyway. A job is a bundle of thirty or forty distinct activities, and they are not equally exposed: an agent can produce most of a first draft, most of a data reconciliation, most of a research summary. It cannot hold a difficult conversation, carry the consequence of a decision, or be in the room.

So the honest unit is the task, not the job title. Break the work into what it is actually made of and the picture stops being frightening and starts being useful. Some of it goes. Most jobs have a real amount that does not, and that part is worth knowing precisely rather than vaguely.

What we built.

Every other directory of AI tools is indexed by vendor, which is why they all end up as the same alphabetised categories and the same handful of paid slots. Ours is indexed by work. We took the public occupational database the US Department of Labor maintains, broke 1,016 occupations into the 2,096 activities they are made of, scored each activity on how much of its output software can produce today, and connected it to the tools that actually address it and the workflows that do it step by step.

You can enter from any direction. Your job title, a single task you are sick of doing, or a tool you are evaluating. They all lead to the same place.

Why the name.

“Human in the loop” usually describes a person stationed at the end of an automated process to approve its output. A rubber stamp with a job title. We mean it the other way round: the loop is yours, and the machine is in it. You decide what to hand over and you keep the parts that were never really about producing output. That is not a consolation prize. Judgment, accountability, presence and trust are most of what people are actually paid for, and they are the parts that get more valuable as the rest gets cheaper.

What we will not do.

• Nothing here is paid placement. No vendor has paid to appear, to rank, or to be recommended. When we name one tool as the thing we would use, it is because it is the cheapest thing that does the job, not the best funded.
• We say when the answer is nothing. Over a thousand of the activities we catalogued are barely automatable, and their pages say so plainly instead of padding a list with tools that would not help.
• Scores are estimates, not predictions.They describe how much of a task’s output an agent can reliably produce today, assuming a person still approves it. They are not forecasts of job loss and we do not present them as such.
• We show our working. The occupations, the activities and the task descriptions all come from O*NET, which is public domain, and every page links back to it. Where a judgment is ours, it is labelled as ours.

Who is behind it.

A very small independent project, built and maintained by one person alongside a handful of other things. That is worth knowing because it sets expectations in both directions: there is no support desk, and there is also no growth team, no investor deck, and no reason to tell you a tool is good when it is not.

If something here is wrong, telling us is genuinely the most useful thing you can do. The contact form goes to a real inbox and gets a reply from a person.