I generally don't think that all traders believe their jobs are immune. Any rational person that looks back at history will observe that the markets have consta

I generally don't think that all traders believe their jobs are immune. Any rational person that looks back at history will observe that the markets have constantly been changing due to technology that speeds up a trade or makes it more accurate. However, most of the significant changes have not been to due to Artificial Intelligence innovations. Instead, those changes have been about automating tasks that were once repetitive. I wouldn't necessarily call that AI. If you'll allow me to simplify the IB Trader's job: there are 2 types of traders: agency and principal traders. Agency traders build relationships with clients, accept orders from them, execute them in the market. They make money on commissions. Principal traders will take risk. Sometimes on behalf of a client - on the back of a client order - or sometimes purely for the bank's own account. The agency traders have seen their roles decimated by technology - because much of their role (minus the relationship building part) was automatized. On the risk-taking side, AI has crept into some places - albeit in very narrow use-cases. For example, we've seen the rise of the robo-advisor, where an "algorithm" comes in and automatically adjusts your portfolio to reduce risk and increase alpha. Well, the risk reduction party is well-known (Markowitz portfolio theory). But the increasing alpha part is the difficult thing. And AI seems to be quite far off in its ability to be a stock picker - simply because the passive approach is superior (ie, no intelligence needed at all).