US dataswitch to UK
Art Directors
working with creative directors to develop design solutions, formulating basic layout design or presentation approach and specifying material details and reviewing and approving art materials. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: creating custom illustrations or other graphic elements. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Formulate design concepts and presentation approaches for visual productions and media, such as print, broadcasting, video, and film. Direct workers engaged in artwork or layout design. The job title says “art directors”. The real job is the part underneath: attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But art directors is not one task. It is 16 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 32%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 46%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 48 out of 100 (41–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 16 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for art directors is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
5 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Creating custom illustrations or other graphic elements
This is reading one thing and writing another: custom illustrations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Create custom illustrations or other graphic elements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Image generation tools now produce commercial illustrations and graphic elements that a director can refine rather than draw.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Formulating basic layout design or presentation approach and specifying material details
This is reading one thing and writing another: basic layout design in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Formulate basic layout design or presentation approach and specify material details, such as style and size of type, photographs, graphics, animation, video, and sound.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Layout options, type choices and material specs are exactly what design tools now generate to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing illustrative material to determine if it conforms to standards and specifications
This is reading one thing and writing another: illustrative material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review illustrative material to determine if it conforms to standards and specifications.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking artwork against written standards and specifications is a comparison job software does consistently.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching current trends and new technology
This is reading one thing and writing another: current trends in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Research current trends and new technology, such as printing production techniques, computer software, and design trends.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tracking design trends, software and printing techniques is research over published material, which AI gathers fast.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
4 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Reviewing and approving art materials
The software now makes the first pass at art materials, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review and approve art materials, copy materials, and proofs of printed copy developed by staff members.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking artwork and proofs against standards is comparison work AI does well, though press proofs are physical.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing own accounts and projects
The software now makes the first pass at own accounts, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Manage own accounts and projects, working within budget and scheduling requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Budgets, schedules and account admin are trackable work software handles, though keeping clients happy stays personal.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Marking up, paste and completing layouts and writing typography instructions to prepare materials for typesetting or printing
The software now makes the first pass at up, paste and completing layouts and writing typography, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Mark up, paste, and complete layouts and write typography instructions to prepare materials for typesetting or printing.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Marking up layouts and writing typesetting instructions is now digital work that design software largely automates.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
7 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Working with creative directors to develop design solutions
The value here is that a specific person handles creative directors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Work with creative directors to develop design solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Design ideas can be generated quickly, but agreeing a direction with a creative director is a back-and-forth conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Presenting final layouts to clients for approval
The value here is that a specific person handles final layouts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Present final layouts to clients for approval.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Winning a client's approval depends on reading the room and answering doubts live.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with creative, art, copywriting or production department heads to discuss client requirements and presentation concepts and to coordinate creative activities
The value here is that a specific person handles creative, art and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with creative, art, copywriting, or production department heads to discuss client requirements and presentation concepts and to coordinate creative activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Coordinating across departments means live discussion where priorities and constraints get traded in real time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 6 tasks
Preparing detailed storyboards showing sequence and timing of story development for television production
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: detailed storyboards showing sequence in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Prepare detailed storyboards showing sequence and timing of story development for television production.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Storyboards showing shot order and timing can be produced from a script by current tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conceptualizing and helping design interfaces for multimedia games
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at design interfaces, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conceptualize and help design interfaces for multimedia games, products, and devices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Interface concepts can be generated as drafts, but making them work for a real product needs designer judgment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Negotiating with printers and estimators to determine what services
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles printers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Negotiate with printers and estimators to determine what services will be performed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting a good price from a printer depends on the supplier relationship and what each side will concede.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with clients to determine objectives
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with clients to determine objectives, budget, background information, and presentation approaches, styles, and techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drawing out what a client actually wants relies on trust built in the meeting itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Hiring, training
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles staff members who develop design concepts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Hire, train, and direct staff members who develop design concepts into art layouts or who prepare layouts for printing.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hiring, training and getting the best from designers depends on working relationships built in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: photo shoots, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products needed are obtained.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Being at the shoot or on press to check what comes out means being physically there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $114,850a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 53,070in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: custom illustrations in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: creating custom illustrations or other graphic elements and formulating basic layout design or presentation approach and specifying material details. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where photo shoots get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Creating custom illustrations or other graphic elements is going; attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products is not.
So, given all that: 32% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 46% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 16 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles attending photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to art directors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was graphic designers: only about 13% of its durable work is work you already do, it is under the same pressure this job is and it pays 45.2% less. Your own job splits about 32/68: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “work with creative directors to develop design solutions”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Graphic Designers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already hire, train, and direct staff members who develop design concepts into art layouts…, and their equivalent is to photograph layouts, using camera, to make layout prints for supervisors or clients. Across both published task lists that is about 12% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 72% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (68/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $62,960 against your $114,850, 45.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Word Processors and Typists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already review and approve art materials, copy materials, and proofs of printed copy developed…, and their equivalent is to print and make copies of work. Across both published task lists that is about 13% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 13% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 67% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (68/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $49,280 against your $114,850, 57.1% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already review and approve art materials, copy materials, and proofs of printed copy developed…, and their equivalent is to make copies of correspondence or other printed material. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 58% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (61/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: $47,540 against your $114,850, 58.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 32% of its task weight, across 16 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are creating custom illustrations or other graphic elements, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Arts officers, producers and directors is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Arts officers, producers and directors and Advertising accounts managers and creative directors. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for art directors, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 32% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for art directors. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for art directors launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Art Directors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 16 official task statements scored for Art Directors (United States, SOC 27-1011), 32% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 48 out of 100 (range 41–54, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Art Directors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Create custom illustrations or other graphic elements” (83/100, very high); “Research current trends and new technology, such as printing production techniques, computer software, and design trends” (83/100, very high); “Formulate basic layout design or presentation approach and specify material details, such as style and size of type, photographs, graphics, animation, video,…” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Art Directors” stay human?
- About 46% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Attend photo shoots and printing sessions to ensure that the products needed are obtained” (0/100, minimal); “Hire, train, and direct staff members who develop design concepts into art layouts or who prepare layouts for printing” (24/100, low); “Confer with clients to determine objectives, budget, background information, and presentation approaches, styles, and techniques” (24/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Art Directors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 32% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 46% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Art Directors calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 16 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.