US dataswitch to UK
Choreographers
directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects, seeking influences from other art forms and experimenting with different types of dancers. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects is work software can't reach.
What shifts is choosing the music, sound effects or spoken narrative to accompany a dance. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Create new dance routines. Rehearse performance of routines. May direct and stage presentations. The job title says “choreographers”. The real job is the part underneath: directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects. 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 choreographers is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 0%
- changing shape
- 17%
- staying human
- 83%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 20 out of 100 (14–26 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 18 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 choreographers 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.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- 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
0 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.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Changing shape
3 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.
Choosing the music, sound effects or spoken narrative to accompany a dance
The software now makes the first pass at the music, sound effects or spoken narrative, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Choose the music, sound effects, or spoken narrative to accompany a dance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software can suggest music and sound to fit a piece, but the final artistic choice stays with the choreographer.
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 2/4.
Seeking influences from other art forms
The software now makes the first pass at influences, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Seek influences from other art forms, such as theatre, the visual arts, and architecture.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 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: Gathering influences from theatre, art and architecture is research, though what actually inspires a choreographer stays personal.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading and studying story lines and musical scores to determine how to translate ideas and moods into dance movements
The software now makes the first pass at story lines, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read and study story lines and musical scores to determine how to translate ideas and moods into dance movements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading a score or story and proposing how it might become movement is interpretation software can draft roughly.
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 2/4.
Staying human
15 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.
Directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects
This work happens in the physical world: rehearsals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Direct rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running a rehearsal means being in the room showing and correcting dancers as they move.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Advising dancers on standing and moving properly
This work happens in the physical world: dancers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Advise dancers on standing and moving properly, teaching correct dance techniques to help prevent injuries.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advising dancers on safe movement depends on watching their bodies and correcting them there and then.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Recording dance movements and their technical aspects
The ratings behind this row put dance movements well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Record dance movements and their technical aspects, using a technical understanding of the patterns and formations of choreography.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Notating movement can be helped by software, but dance notation is specialist and very little of it is public.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Directing and staging dance presentations for various forms of entertainment
This work happens in the physical world: dance presentations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct and stage dance presentations for various forms of entertainment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Staging a dance for an audience means directing performers in the space as they rehearse and perform.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Experimenting with different types of dancers
This work happens in the physical world: different types of dancers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Experiment with different types of dancers, steps, dances, and placements, testing ideas informally to get feedback from dancers.” (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: Trying steps and placements out on real dancers happens in a studio with bodies moving.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Teaching students, dancers and other performers about rhythm and interpretive movement
This work happens in the physical world: students, dancers and other performers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Teach students, dancers, and other performers about rhythm and interpretive movement.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching rhythm and interpretive movement happens live, with the teacher demonstrating and responding.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing ideas for creating dances
The ratings behind this row put ideas well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop ideas for creating dances, keeping notes and sketches to record influences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Ideas and sketches for a dance can be prompted by software, but the useful ones come from the choreographer.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 8 tasks
Managing dance schools or assisting in their management
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put dance schools well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Manage dance schools, or assist in their management.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: Running a dance school involves ordinary admin software helps with, plus decisions the owner makes 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating production music with music directors
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put production music well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate production music with music directors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Coordinating music with a music director is working-level conversation that mostly happens between two people.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Designing sets, lighting, costumes and other artistic elements of productions, in collaboration with cast members
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put sets, lighting well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design sets, lighting, costumes, and other artistic elements of productions, in collaboration with cast members.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Set, lighting and costume ideas can be drafted digitally, but they are agreed in collaboration with the cast.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Designing dances for individual dancers
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: dances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design dances for individual dancers, dance companies, musical theatre, opera, fashion shows, film, television productions, and special events, and for dancers ranging from beginners to professionals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Designing dance for particular bodies and companies is creative work software can only nudge, not produce.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Restaging traditional dances and works in dance companies' repertoires
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: traditional dances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Restage traditional dances and works in dance companies' repertoires, developing new interpretations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Restaging an existing work means rebuilding it on dancers in the studio.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Auditioning performers for one or more dance parts
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: performers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Audition performers for one or more dance parts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Auditioning dancers means watching them move in front of you and judging fit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Assessing students' dancing abilities to determine where improvement or change
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: students' dancing abilities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Assess students' dancing abilities to determine where improvement or change is needed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging what a dancer needs to improve depends on watching them dance in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Training exercise
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: exercise, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train, exercise, and attend dance classes to maintain high levels of technical proficiency, physical ability, and physical fitness.” (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: Training and staying fit is something only the choreographer’s own body can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $55,310a 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
- 2,860in 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 the music, sound effects or spoken narrative, work whose mistakes are cheap to catch, so software can take the first pass. The rows above are exactly that shape: choosing the music, sound effects or spoken narrative to accompany a dance. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where rehearsals 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
Start with what does not change: directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 83% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 18 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Choosing the music, sound effects or spoken narrative to accompany a dance is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to the music, sound effects or spoken narrative, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether rehearsals are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near choosing the music, sound effects or spoken narrative to accompany a dance. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. 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 choreographers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was dancers: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 20/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “direct rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
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.
Dancers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “train, exercise, and attend dance classes to maintain high levels of technical proficiency, physical ability, and…”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 9% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Music Directors and Composers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already audition performers for one or more dance parts, and their equivalent is to audition and select performers for musical presentations. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Musicians and Singers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already coordinate production music with music directors, and their equivalent is to teach music for specific instruments. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
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: 0% of its task weight, across 18 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like directing rehearsals to instruct dancers in dance steps and in techniques to achieve desired effects arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
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.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Dancers and choreographers 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 Dancers and choreographers and Teaching professionals n.e.c.. 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
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for choreographers 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 Choreographers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Choreographers (United States, SOC 27-2032), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 20 out of 100 (range 14–26, band: low). 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 “Choreographers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Read and study story lines and musical scores to determine how to translate ideas and moods into dance movements” (50/100, partial); “Choose the music, sound effects, or spoken narrative to accompany a dance” (50/100, partial); “Seek influences from other art forms, such as theatre, the visual arts, and architecture” (43/100, partial). 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 “Choreographers” stay human?
- About 83% 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: “Experiment with different types of dancers, steps, dances, and placements, testing ideas informally to get feedback from dancers” (0/100, minimal); “Train, exercise, and attend dance classes to maintain high levels of technical proficiency, physical ability, and physical fitness” (0/100, minimal); “Assess students' dancing abilities to determine where improvement or change is needed” (4/100, minimal). 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 “Choreographers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 83% 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 Choreographers 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 18 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.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- 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.