US dataswitch to UK
Fashion Designers
sketching rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories, directing and coordinating workers involved in drawing and cutting patterns and constructing samples or finished garments and developing a group of products or accessories. 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: sketching rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, examining sample garments on and off models, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Design clothing and accessories. Create original designs or adapt fashion trends. The job title says “fashion designers”. The real job is the part underneath: examining sample garments on and off models. 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 fashion designers is not one task. It is 20 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is examining sample garments on and off models, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 21%
- changing shape
- 5%
- staying human
- 74%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 28 out of 100 (23–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 20 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 fashion designers 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.
- 1 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
4 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.
Sketching rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories
This is reading one thing and writing another: rough in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Sketch rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories, and write specifications such as color schemes, construction, material types, and accessory requirements.” (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: Design sketches and spec sheets are the kind of visual and written output AI now produces well.
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.
Identifying target markets
This is reading one thing and writing another: target markets in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify target markets for designs, looking at factors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status.” (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: Working out who a design is for is market analysis AI does well from available data.
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.
Determining prices for styles
This is reading one thing and writing another: prices in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Determine prices for styles.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 68 out of 100 (61–75 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Setting a style's price is a costing and positioning calculation software supports well.
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 2/4.
Researching the styles and periods of clothing needed for film or theatrical productions
This is reading one thing and writing another: the styles in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Research the styles and periods of clothing needed for film or theatrical productions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very 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: Researching historical dress for a production is library work AI does exceptionally well.
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
1 taskTasks 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.
Adapting other designers' ideas for the mass market
The software now makes the first pass at other designers' ideas, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Adapt other designers' ideas for the mass market.” (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: AI can restyle a look for the mass market, but cost and manufacturing limits need 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.
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.
Examining sample garments on and off models
This work happens in the physical world: sample garments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine sample garments on and off models, modifying designs to achieve desired effects.” (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: Judging how a garment hangs on a real body means seeing and handling it.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Selecting materials and production techniques to be used for products
This work happens in the physical world: materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Select materials and production techniques to be used for products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Choosing fabric depends partly on how it feels and drapes in your hands.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with other designers to coordinate special products and designs
The value here is that a specific person handles other designers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collaborate with other designers to coordinate special products and designs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Designing together with other designers is a back-and-forth between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Providing sample garments to agents and sales representatives
This work happens in the physical world: sample garments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide sample garments to agents and sales representatives, and arrange for showings of sample garments at sales meetings or fashion shows.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting samples in front of buyers and showing them is physical, in-person work.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with sales and management executives or with clients to discuss design ideas
The value here is that a specific person handles sales and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with sales and management executives or with clients to discuss design ideas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (13–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Selling a design idea to clients or executives happens in live conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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 2/4.
Show the other 10 tasks
Attending fashion shows and reviewing garment magazines and manuals to gather information about fashion trends and consumer preferences
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fashion shows, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend fashion shows and review garment magazines and manuals to gather information about fashion trends and consumer preferences.” (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: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Trend-spotting from magazines is easy for AI; attending the shows themselves is not.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing custom clothing and accessories
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles custom and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Design custom clothing and accessories for individuals, retailers, or theatrical, television, or film productions.” (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: Custom design tools help a lot, but designing for one client's body and taste needs contact with them.
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.
Reading scripts and consulting directors and other production staff to develop design concepts and plan productions
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles scripts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Read scripts and consult directors and other production staff to develop design concepts and plan productions.” (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: Scripts are easy to read and interpret, but agreeing a look with a director is a 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.
Directing and coordinating workers involved in drawing and cutting patterns and constructing samples or finished garments
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct and coordinate workers involved in drawing and cutting patterns and constructing samples or finished garments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 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: Directing pattern cutters and sample makers means guiding people at the workbench.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing a group of products or accessories
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: a group of products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop a group of products or accessories, and market them through venues such as boutiques or mail-order catalogs.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Building and selling a product range through boutiques involves real buyers and real stock.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing fabrics or overseeing testing so that garment care labels
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fabrics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Test fabrics or oversee testing so that garment care labels can be created.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Care labels come from real fabric testing in a laboratory.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Purchasing new or used clothing and accessory items as needed to complete designs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: new or used clothing and accessory items, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Purchase new or used clothing and accessory items as needed to complete designs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Sourcing and buying actual clothing and trims means going out and getting them.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Visiting textile showrooms to keep up-to-date on the latest fabrics
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: textile showrooms, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Visit textile showrooms to keep up-to-date on the latest fabrics.” (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: Visiting showrooms to see and feel new fabrics means being there.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Drawing patterns for articles
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: patterns, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Draw patterns for articles designed, cut patterns, and cut material according to patterns, using measuring instruments and scissors.” (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: Drawing, cutting and marking patterns on cloth is hands-on work with scissors and tools.
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 2/4.
Sewing together sections of material to form mockups or samples of garments or articles
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: together sections of material, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Sew together sections of material to form mockups or samples of garments or articles, using sewing equipment.” (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: Sewing a sample garment together requires hands at a machine.
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 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $80,960a 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
- 21,450in 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: target markets in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: sketching rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories and identifying target markets. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where sample garments 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. Sketching rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories is going; examining sample garments on and off models is not.
So, given all that: 21% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 5% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 74% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 20 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 (examining sample garments on and off models) 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 examining sample garments on and off models, 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 fashion designers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was fabric and apparel patternmakers: only about 11% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 22.5% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 28/100 here, with only 21% of the task list in the top band, and “examine sample garments on and off models, modifying designs to achieve desired…” 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.
Fabric and Apparel Patternmakers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide sample garments to agents and sales representatives, and arrange for showings of…, and their equivalent is to test patterns by making and fitting sample garments. Across both published task lists that is about 11% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 11% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $62,750 against your $80,960, 22.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 2,950 of those jobs against 21,450 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 14% as many seats.
Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already determine prices for styles, and their equivalent is to confer with customers to determine types of material and garment styles desired. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $41,640 against your $80,960, 48.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Sewing Machine Operators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already draw patterns for articles designed, cut patterns, and cut material according to patterns…, and their equivalent is to cut materials according to specifications, using blades, scissors, or electric knives. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $36,670 against your $80,960, 54.7% 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: 21% of its task weight, across 20 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.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Clothing, fashion and accessories designers 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 Clothing, fashion and accessories designers and Design occupations 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
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for fashion designers, 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 21% 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 fashion designers. 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 fashion designers 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 Fashion Designers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 20 official task statements scored for Fashion Designers (United States, SOC 27-1022), 21% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 23–34, 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 “Fashion Designers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research the styles and periods of clothing needed for film or theatrical productions” (83/100, very high); “Sketch rough and detailed drawings of apparel or accessories, and write specifications such as color schemes, construction, material types, and accessory req…” (75/100, high); “Identify target markets for designs, looking at factors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status” (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 “Fashion Designers” stay human?
- About 74% 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: “Sew together sections of material to form mockups or samples of garments or articles, using sewing equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Draw patterns for articles designed, cut patterns, and cut material according to patterns, using measuring instruments and scissors” (0/100, minimal); “Visit textile showrooms to keep up-to-date on the latest fabrics” (0/100, 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 “Fashion Designers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 21% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 74% 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 Fashion Designers 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 20 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.
- 1 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.