If you want to be pedantic, even computer scientists were around 100 years ago (Ada Lovelace, for one).

Really, if you want to discount all the fields I've named on principle because to you those jobs are not 'fundamentally new types' then computer programmer also doesn't qualify as a fundamentally new type of job.

Assembly line worker wasn't a profession in 1912 either, it only became one in 1913 when the assembly line was invented.

Classes of professions have not been invented since about 500 years ago, typically the classes of professions that are recognized haven't changed much at all, and yet, you'd be hard pressed to find 'tour-operator', 'social media strategist', 'geneticist', 'nuclear reactor operator' and so on in a list of jobs from the early 1900's. And by that reasoning 'computer scientist' is just a sub-class of scientist, actually one of the oldest professions we have.

'Fundamentally' is a cheat, there are no new 'types' of jobs, there are only jobs that did not exist before and there are jobs that nobody holds anymore.

I think the point is that indeed, there are no new "types" of jobs - only variations of the few basic ones. And automation is a problem because it eliminates types of jobs. For each labour-intensive profession you now have a corresponding machine. For each precision-related occupation you now have an industrial robot design. And nowadays we're coding up programs addressing brainpower-related jobs. What else is there? What other type of jobs we have left, and is there anything preventing them from falling prey to technological progress?

I don't see how that is pedantic at all.

Bringing up Lovelace however is quite pedantic and I think you know that very well.

Assembly line worker did not require any new skills. Instead it required a subset af the previous skills people had whether welders, blacksmiths, carpenters, painters etc.

So you haven't really pointed to any new jobs and no fundamentally new type of jobs isn't a cheat.

Furthermore I am not really sure what you are trying to prove. Even if I had missed a few (which I haven't) it wouldn't change the facts.

I'll supply astronaut instead and see you argue around how that really is just another form of 'traveler'.

I'll bite. An astronaut is basically a highly trained horse carriage passenger. Most of spaceship operations are already controlled by machines anyway, and they do it better than humans. Hell, when you see discussions about manned Mars missions, the recurring question is, "why bother with people when machines can already do it better?".

If we're going to be strict then there are two basic forms of work: thinking and moving stuff around. Everything else is a variation on those two.

Thats not even true.

Crafts are neither just thinking or just moving things around.

This is getting silly and if this is all you got lets just stop here.

No one is just an astronaut. Everyone who even get to get into space have some sort of profession behind them which is why they are hired to begin with.