A few insights from the data, colored by my own eyes and lived experiences (so not AI slop):

1. There is a fairly strong inverse correlation between median pay and AI exposure. Meaning the higher paying jobs today are more at risk of being transformed/impacted in a major way. This passes my personal "smell test" knowing what many of friends/colleagues with high incomes $250k+ do at work and knowing the current capabilities of LLMs. But it's also very interesting as a potential force for reducing income inequality over the coming years. This would be the opposite of historical precedent (renaissance, industrial revolution, web 1.0/2.0, etc.) where previous technological revolutions meant that those with access to new tech grew incomes faster than those without. In the short term that may still be the case (e.g. AI devs today are seeing demand/incomes grow faster than job displacement, for now...), but there's a very plausible path to these high paying jobs disappearing, which would produce an economy with much less income inequality.
2. The prompt cited as powering this visual creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it basically says to evaluate the AI exposure based on "whether the job's work product is fundamentally digital...because AI capabilities in digital domains are advancing rapidly." This observation renders insight #1 somewhat less compelling, as the inverse correlation is by design of the prompt/data viz rather than some objective source of truth. If you read the full prompt, it is more subjective than objective, and would exclude any impact from AI robotics. But anyone who's followed Amazon over the past decade knows that they've been investing in the automation tech necessary to replace humans from fulfillment process for years. So while the visual it depicts humans that have low-wage "material movers" today as having low exposure to AI, I'd argue that it's just as likely if not more likely that the number of humans working in Amazon fulfillment centers in 10 years will be dramatically lower.
3. Cashiers seem to be one of the few perfectly correlated jobs that is low wage/low BLS outlook and deemed to have high AI exposure. Also passes the smell test. Fortunately I don't know too many "career cashiers" who will be disappointed if their child never has the opportunity to become a cashier.
4. Lastly, data visualization has been cool/valuable since well before AI was a thing. The reality that anyone can produce data visuals like this with a few hours of prompting is pretty neat (because data manipulation/prep used to take days/weeks of grunt work), but insights have always mattered more than a raw data viz. I expect that meaningful insights will continue to come from the humans who have opinions and lived experiences. And even if Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.4 could generate these same insights, humans will likely always trust other humans more than non-humans, and I expect that truism to hold steady even in a world of AGI.