US dataswitch to UK
Software Developers
monitoring functioning of equipment to ensure system operates in conformance with specifications, modifying existing software to correct errors and preparing reports or correspondence concerning project specifications. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
Most tasks in this job are the kind AI has learned to do: developing or directing software system testing or validation procedures. The tasks, though, are not you.
It would be a lie to soften that; consulting with customers or other departments on project status is what this work rebuilds around. Your move starts there.
Your week, as this page understands it
Research, design, and develop computer and network software or specialized utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions, applying principles and techniques of computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis. Update software or enhance existing software capabilities. May work with computer hardware engineers to integrate hardware and software systems, and develop specifications and performance requirements. May maintain databases within an application area, working individually or coordinating database development as part of a team. The job title says “software developers”. The real job is the part underneath: consulting with customers or other departments on project status. 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 software developers is not one task. It is 17 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is consulting with customers or other departments on project status, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 60%
- changing shape
- 16%
- staying human
- 24%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 61 out of 100 (55–67 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, across 17 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 software developers 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 2026-08-04. 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
10 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.
Developing or directing software system testing or validation procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: software system in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop or direct software system testing or validation procedures, programming, or documentation.” (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: Generating tests, checks and documentation from existing code is something AI tools do quickly and to a standard developers accept.
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.
Analyzing information to determine, recommend and plan installation of a new system or modification of an existing system
This is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze information to determine, recommend, and plan installation of a new system or modification of an existing system.” (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: Studying requirements and drafting a plan for a new or changed system is desk work AI handles well, though local quirks need checking.
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.
Modifying existing software to correct errors
This is reading one thing and writing another: software in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Modify existing software to correct errors, adapt it to new hardware, or upgrade interfaces and improve performance.” (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: Fixing bugs and updating existing code is what today's coding tools are best at, with a developer reviewing before release.
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.
Determining system performance standards
This is reading one thing and writing another: system performance standards in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Determine system performance standards.” (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: Setting performance targets is desk work drawing on well-documented practice, though the right numbers depend on this system's own users.
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.
Changing shape
2 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.
Analyzing user needs and software requirements to determine feasibility of design within time and cost constraints
The software now makes the first pass at user needs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze user needs and software requirements to determine feasibility of design within time and cost constraints.” (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: mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Judging whether a design fits the time and money available depends on what this team can actually deliver, which software cannot reliably know.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with systems analysts, engineers
The software now makes the first pass at systems analysts, engineers, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with systems analysts, engineers, programmers and others to design systems and to obtain information on project limitations and capabilities, performance requirements and interfaces.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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: Software helps sketch system designs, but the useful detail comes from talking to the engineers who know the project's limits.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
5 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.
Consulting with customers or other departments on project status
The value here is that a specific person handles customers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Consult with customers or other departments on project status, proposals, or technical issues, such as software system design or maintenance.” (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: Customers want a person to talk to about progress and problems, even though software can prepare the update itself.
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 data processing or project managers to obtain information on limitations or capabilities for data processing projects
The ratings behind this row put data well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Confer with data processing or project managers to obtain information on limitations or capabilities for data processing projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: The point of this task is getting information out of colleagues' heads, and software cannot hold that conversation for you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising the work of programmers
The value here is that a specific person handles the work of programmers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Supervise the work of programmers, technologists and technicians and other engineering and scientific personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 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: Overseeing engineers' work rests on personal judgement about people you know, something no tool can take over.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising and assigning work
The value here is that a specific person handles work and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Supervise and assign work to programmers, designers, technologists, technicians, or other engineering or scientific personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 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: Assigning work to and overseeing a team depends on knowing the people, which software cannot do for you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 7 tasks
Preparing reports or correspondence concerning project specifications
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare reports or correspondence concerning project specifications, activities, or status.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (89–97 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: Writing status reports and project correspondence from information already held in tracking systems is routine work AI does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Designing, developing and modifying software systems
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: software systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design, develop and modify software systems, using scientific analysis and mathematical models to predict and measure outcomes and consequences of design.” (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: Writing and changing software is one of the strongest uses for today's AI tools, though a developer still checks the result.
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.
Monitoring functioning of equipment to ensure system operates in conformance with specifications
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: equipment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Monitor functioning of equipment to ensure system operates in conformance with specifications.” (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: Watching systems against a written specification is already largely automated, though someone occasionally has to look at the hardware.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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 4/4.
Obtaining and evaluating information on factors
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Obtain and evaluate information on factors such as reporting formats required, costs, or security needs to determine hardware configuration.” (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: Gathering requirements on formats, cost and security to pick a configuration is research and comparison work software does quickly.
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.
Storing, retrieving and manipulating data for analysis of system capabilities and requirements
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Store, retrieve, and manipulate data for analysis of system capabilities and 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: Pulling and reshaping data to answer questions about a system suits software, though deciding what to examine needs judgement.
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.
Coordinating installation of software system
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: installation of software system in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Coordinate installation of software system.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 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: Rolling out software happens at a keyboard, and scripted, repeatable deployment steps are something tools already handle reliably.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training users to use new or modified equipment
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles users and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Train users to use new or modified equipment.” (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: AI can produce excellent training material, but showing people how to use new equipment usually means being there 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.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $135,980a 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
- 1,687,890in 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: software system in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: developing or directing software system testing or validation procedures and analyzing information to determine, recommend and plan installation of a new system or modification of an existing system. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what customers run on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. 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
The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: developing or directing software system testing or validation procedures is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 60% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 24% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 17 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is consulting with customers or other departments on project status, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.
This week: one thing
Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of software system you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.
- What you end up holding
- a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
- How long it takes
- an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client
If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of software system, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.
Over the next 90 days
Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is developing or directing software system testing or validation procedures” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.
Over the next 12 months
Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of consulting with customers or other departments on project status you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. 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 software developers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was computer hardware engineers: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. I am not going to pretend that is comfortable news: 60% of your own task list is already in the top exposure band. But the answer on this evidence is not a sideways jump into a job with the same problem. It is to walk toward the end of this one that answers for things. “analyze user needs and software requirements to determine feasibility of design within…” is the part that stays with a person, and spending a year getting formally recognised for it beats a standing start somewhere else.
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.
Computer Hardware Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor functioning of equipment to ensure system operates in conformance with specifications, and their equivalent is to monitor functioning of equipment and make necessary modifications to ensure system operates in…. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. And it is a narrow door: about 76,660 of those jobs against 1,687,890 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 5% as many seats.
Computer Network Architects
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already coordinate installation of software system, and their equivalent is to coordinate installation of new equipment. 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. And it is a narrow door: about 179,740 of those jobs against 1,687,890 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 11% as many seats.
Computer User Support Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already coordinate installation of software system, and their equivalent is to set up equipment for employee use, performing or ensuring proper installation of cables…. 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: $61,860 against your $135,980, 54.5% 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: 60% of its task weight, across 17 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: consulting with customers or other departments on project status is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
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 Programmers and software development professionals 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
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Programmers and software development professionals. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
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 software developer, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
The working behind that
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 60% 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 software developer. 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 software developers 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 Software Developers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 17 official task statements scored for Software Developers (United States, SOC 15-1252), 60% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 61 out of 100 (range 55–67, band: high). 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 “Software Developers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare reports or correspondence concerning project specifications, activities, or status” (93/100, very high); “Design, develop and modify software systems, using scientific analysis and mathematical models to predict and measure outcomes and consequences of design” (83/100, very high); “Develop or direct software system testing or validation procedures, programming, or documentation” (83/100, very 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 “Software Developers” stay human?
- About 24% 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: “Supervise the work of programmers, technologists and technicians and other engineering and scientific personnel” (18/100, minimal); “Supervise and assign work to programmers, designers, technologists, technicians, or other engineering or scientific personnel” (18/100, minimal); “Confer with data processing or project managers to obtain information on limitations or capabilities for data processing projects” (28/100, 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 “Software Developers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 60% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 24% 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 Software Developers 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 17 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.