Blind Saju Practitioners in Seoul Face AI Competition: What One Report Says About Work and Community
Mia-ri in Seoul was once home to a group of blind Saju practitioners who read birth charts for customers. In August 2026, Agence France-Presse reported that some older practitioners were facing fewer customers and competition from online AI services. This is not only a technology story about “machines taking jobs.” It also touches on neighborhood memory, disability employment and the listening that can be part of a human consultation.
One interviewee said customers used to talk to her about illness, money and relationships; some now prefer to ask AI a quick question on their phone. The report conveyed both her loneliness and her professional experience. Reducing the story to “AI is eliminating blind fortune-tellers” would oversimplify a complex change.
The report describes a changing community
The Straits Times reported on August 13 on its interview with 86-year-old Ms. Song, who had long offered Four Pillars readings based on a customer’s birth date and time in Mia-ri. The report said the neighborhood once had around 70 to 80 practitioners and now had fewer than 20. Those figures came from reporting and community information; they are not a count of all fortune-tellers in South Korea.
The article discussed fewer customers alongside greater use of online readings and AI chatbots. An aging population, neighborhood change, the local business environment and a shift in how people seek services could also play a part. Interviews in one district cannot establish that AI was the only or main cause.
A human consultation offers more than a chart
Traditional fortune-telling may involve calculation and interpretation, as well as a customer explaining a situation, a practitioner asking follow-up questions and the development of trust. The interviewee’s emphasis on listening shows that she understood her work as more than producing a chart verdict. AI can answer immediately, but whether it understands an unstated concern depends on how it asks questions, remembers context and responds.
Human experience does not make every reading accurate or right for every customer either. Reporting should avoid romanticizing practitioners or depicting AI as a simple, uncaring machine. Comparison is more useful when it focuses on service and user needs than on who is more spiritual.
Technology change also affects work and access
AI tools may make low-cost, immediate readings easier to access and can change the livelihoods of established communities. For blind practitioners, that shift intersects with the historic limits on employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Coverage that celebrates automation only for its efficiency misses who bears the cost of change.
Mystilink can make online entry points to a range of knowledge and tools while respecting different forms of service. AI may help someone learn terminology or record questions; a human adviser may provide a deeper conversation. The two can complement one another. Any promise to offer human services should match the actual product.
What can be automated, and what still needs judgment?
Chart calculation, information retrieval and formatting can be turned into software tasks relatively easily. Interpreting an ambiguous question, handling emotion and understanding context call for more design and human judgment. Even when a system automates part of the work, its error-handling and responsibility should be disclosed.
Don’t treat one neighborhood as an entire industry
The Mia-ri case offers a view into technological and occupational change, but it cannot represent every traditional practitioner in South Korea. Customer demographics, income changes and how practitioners adapt deserve further reporting, along with the voices of people in the community. Technology coverage can discuss efficiency; brand content should also explain the human circumstances.