Microsoft Study Claims Historians at High Risk from AI Automation — Experts Disagree

A controversial Microsoft study has ranked historians among the jobs most vulnerable to AI automation, placing the profession second on a list of 40 occupations at high risk of being replaced by artificial intelligence. The research, based on analysis of 200,000 Copilot user interactions, has sparked significant pushback from experts who argue that historical work requires irreplaceable human judgment and cultural interpretation.

"Our research shows that AI supports many tasks, particularly those involving research, writing, and communication, but does not indicate it can fully perform any single occupation."

— Kiran Tomlinson, Senior Researcher, Microsoft

The study, titled "Working with AI: Measuring the Occupational Implications of Generative AI," analyzed how different professions interact with AI tools and calculated an "AI applicability score" based on task overlap. Historians scored highly because AI performed well at information gathering tasks that users frequently requested.

Study Methodology and Findings

Microsoft researchers examined real-world usage patterns of their Copilot AI assistant over nine months, focusing on how successfully the AI completed various work-related tasks. The study measured user satisfaction through thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback to determine which professions showed the highest AI applicability.

The Microsoft analysis placed historians as the second-most vulnerable profession to AI automation, trailing only interpreters and translators. The ranking was based on AI's demonstrated success at gathering historical information, researching social issues, and examining materials for accuracy.

The study found that AI excelled at tasks involving research and information synthesis, areas that overlap significantly with traditional historical methodology. Copilot users frequently tasked the AI with researching historical events, analyzing social issues, and examining documents for accuracy - core activities in historical practice.

White-Collar Job Vulnerability

The findings revealed that higher education requirements correlated with increased AI risk, challenging assumptions that advanced degrees provide protection from automation. Many of the most vulnerable positions require bachelor's or advanced degrees, including historians, writers, and technical specialists.

Critics argue that the Microsoft study fundamentally misunderstands historical work, pointing to critical limitations in AI's ability to handle the nuanced, interpretive aspects of historical analysis. Experts emphasize that historical research involves far more than information gathering.

The study's methodology has drawn particular criticism for focusing primarily on information gathering rather than the full spectrum of historical work. Critics note that AI's propensity for hallucination and fabricating sources makes it particularly unsuitable for historical research, where accuracy is paramount.

"That could explain why certain jobs, such as historians, authors, and political scientists, ended up with some of the highest AI applicability scores, despite greatly relying on human intuition and expertise, and having to work with incomplete or contradictory documentation."

— Analysis from Futurism on study limitations

The Human Element in Historical Interpretation

Experts emphasize that historical work requires sophisticated human judgment that current AI systems cannot replicate. This includes understanding cultural contexts, recognizing subtle biases in sources, and synthesizing complex narratives that account for multiple perspectives and contradictory evidence.

Critics have pointed to Microsoft's significant financial interests in AI technology as a potential source of bias in the study's conclusions. As a major developer of AI tools including Copilot, the company has clear incentives to highlight AI capabilities and potential applications.

Even Microsoft researchers acknowledged significant limitations in their methodology and conclusions. The study explicitly states that it does not indicate AI can fully perform any single occupation and warns against assuming high applicability scores translate to job elimination.

The ATM Analogy

Microsoft researchers used the example of ATMs and bank tellers to illustrate how automation can paradoxically increase employment. While ATMs automated core teller tasks, the number of bank teller jobs actually increased as banks opened more branches at lower costs and tellers focused on relationship-building.

The controversy over historians and AI highlights broader questions about the role of artificial intelligence in knowledge-based professions and the preservation of human expertise in fields requiring cultural understanding and interpretive skills.

Impact on Humanities Education

The debate has implications for humanities education and career planning, as students and institutions grapple with questions about the future relevance of traditional humanistic disciplines in an AI-dominated landscape. However, experts argue that human interpretation and cultural analysis remain fundamentally irreplaceable.

"Languages are more than just words—they're reflections of culture, history, and social norms. Professional human interpreters, with their in-depth cultural knowledge and ability to adapt on the fly, ensure that these nuances are captured and conveyed accurately."

— KUDO on irreplaceable human expertise

Human-AI Collaboration Model

Rather than replacement, experts suggest that the future lies in human-AI collaboration, where artificial intelligence handles routine research tasks while humans focus on interpretation, analysis, and the complex judgments that define historical scholarship.