US dataswitch to UK
Writers and Authors
writing fiction or nonfiction prose, conferring with clients, editors and planning project arrangements or outlines. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: varying language and tone of messages based on product and medium is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and presenting drafts and ideas to clients is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. Moving toward the second half is a real, doable plan.
Your week, as this page understands it
Originate and prepare written material, such as scripts, stories, advertisements, and other material. The job title says “writers” or “authors”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: presenting drafts and ideas to clients. 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 writers and authors is not one task. It is 36 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is presenting drafts and ideas to clients, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 51%
- changing shape
- 17%
- staying human
- 33%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 53 out of 100 (48–58 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 36 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 writers and authors 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.
- 6 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
18 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.
Writing fiction or nonfiction prose
It is the same call made over and over on fiction, with a right answer to check it against. That is what a model is trained on.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Write fiction or nonfiction prose, such as short stories, novels, biographies, articles, descriptive or critical analyses, and essays.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 allowing for uncertainty): high 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 drafts serviceable articles and essays, but sustained original prose still needs heavy rewriting by the writer.
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 4/4.
Revising written material to meet personal standards and to satisfy needs of clients
This is reading one thing and writing another: written material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Revise written material to meet personal standards and to satisfy needs of clients, publishers, directors, or producers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Revising to a brief is well within reach, but satisfying one editor's particular taste needs their input.
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.
Developing factors, themes, plots, characterizations, psychological analyses, historical environments, action and dialogue to create material
It is the same call made over and over on factors, themes, plots, characterizations, psychological analyses, historical environments, with a right answer to check it against. That is what a model is trained on.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Develop factors such as themes, plots, characterizations, psychological analyses, historical environments, action, and dialogue to create material.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 allowing for uncertainty): high 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: Plots and characters come out generic without a lot of authorial reworking, though the raw material is easy to generate.
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 4/4.
Preparing works in appropriate format
This is reading one thing and writing another: works in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare works in appropriate format for publication, and send them to publishers or producers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Formatting a manuscript to a publisher spec is routine; the submission itself still comes from the author.
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.
Changing shape
6 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.
Conducting research to obtain factual information and authentic detail
The software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct research to obtain factual information and authentic detail, using sources such as newspaper accounts, diaries, and interviews.” (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: Published sources are searchable, but diaries, archives and interviews mean going somewhere and asking people.
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.
Developing advertising campaigns for a wide range of clients
The software now makes the first pass at campaigns, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop advertising campaigns for a wide range of clients, working with an advertising agency's creative director and art director to determine the best way to present advertising information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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 generates plenty of campaign angles, but the back-and-forth with a creative director shapes what actually gets made.
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 3/4.
Writing narrative, dramatic, lyric or other types of poetry for publication
The software now makes the first pass at narrative, dramatic, lyric or other types of poetry, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Write narrative, dramatic, lyric, or other types of poetry for publication.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: AI produces competent-sounding verse, but poetry accepted for publication still comes almost entirely from the poet.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying human
12 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.
Choosing subject matter and suitable form to express personal feelings and experiences or ideas
The ratings behind this row put subject matter well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Choose subject matter and suitable form to express personal feelings and experiences or ideas, or to narrate stories or events.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (29–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Choosing what to write about from your own feelings and experience is personal to the author and undocumented anywhere.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with clients, editors, publishers or producers to discuss changes or revisions to written material
The value here is that a specific person handles clients, editors, publishers or producers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Confer with clients, editors, publishers, or producers to discuss changes or revisions to written material.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (19–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The value is in the live discussion with an editor or producer, not in a document that could be handed 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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting drafts and ideas to clients
The value here is that a specific person handles drafts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Present drafts and ideas to clients.” (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: Getting a client to buy into creative work depends on reading their reaction live and adjusting on the spot.
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 26 tasks
Varying language and tone of messages based on product and medium
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: language in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Vary language and tone of messages based on product and medium.” (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: Shifting language and tone for a different product or channel is quick, dependable work for software.
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.
Writing articles, bulletins, sales letters, speeches and other related informative, marketing and promotional material
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: articles, bulletins, sales letters in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write articles, bulletins, sales letters, speeches, and other related informative, marketing and promotional material.” (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: Articles, sales letters and speeches follow familiar patterns that AI writes well once given the product facts.
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.
Writing advertising material
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Write advertising material for use by publication, broadcast, or internet media to promote the sale of goods and services.” (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: Promotional copy for print, broadcast and online follows well-worn formats that AI produces to a usable standard.
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.
Writing to customers in their terms and on their level so that the script
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: customers in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Write to customers in their terms and on their level so that the script, story, or advertisement message is more readily received.” (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: Pitching the same message at the reader's level and in their words is exactly what language tools are built for.
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.
Editing or rewriting existing written material
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: written material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Edit or rewrite existing written material as necessary, and submit written material for approval by supervisor, editor, or publisher.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 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: Editing and tightening existing text is a core strength of current tools, with an editor still approving the result.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Planning project arrangements or outlines
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: project arrangements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan project arrangements or outlines, and organize material accordingly.” (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: Turning a rough idea into a structured outline and running order is quick, reliable work for current tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Following appropriate procedures to get copyrights for completed work
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: appropriate procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Follow appropriate procedures to get copyrights for completed work.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Copyright registration follows published, unchanging steps, though the author has to submit under their own name.
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.
Inventing names for products and writing the slogans that appear on packaging
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: names in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Invent names for products and write the slogans that appear on packaging, brochures and other promotional material.” (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 hundreds of name and slogan options is quick for AI; a person still picks and checks the winner.
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.
Following appropriate procedures to get copyrights for completed work
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: appropriate procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Follow appropriate procedures to get copyrights for completed work.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Copyright registration follows published, unchanging steps, though the author has to submit under their own name.
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.
Planning project arrangements or outlines
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: project arrangements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Plan project arrangements or outlines, and organize material accordingly.” (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: Turning a rough idea into a structured outline and running order is quick, reliable work for current tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reviewing advertising trends, consumer surveys and other data regarding marketing of goods and services to determine the best way to promote products
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: trends in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review advertising trends, consumer surveys, and other data regarding marketing of goods and services to determine the best way to promote products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling trends out of survey data and market reports is straightforward analysis on material already in digital form.
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.
Writing fiction or nonfiction prose
shifting to AIIt is the same call made over and over on fiction, with a right answer to check it against. That is what a model is trained on.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Write fiction or nonfiction prose, such as short stories, novels, biographies, articles, descriptive or critical analyses, and essays.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 allowing for uncertainty): high 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 drafts serviceable articles and essays, but sustained original prose still needs heavy rewriting by the writer.
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 4/4.
Preparing works in appropriate format
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: works in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Prepare works in appropriate format for publication, and send them to publishers or producers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Formatting a manuscript to a publisher spec is routine; the submission itself still comes from the author.
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.
Revising written material to meet personal standards and to satisfy needs of clients
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: written material in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Revise written material to meet personal standards and to satisfy needs of clients, publishers, directors, or producers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Revising to a brief is well within reach, but satisfying one editor's particular taste needs their input.
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.
Conducting research and interviews to determine which of a product's selling features
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct research and interviews to determine which of a product's selling features should be promoted.” (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: Desk research is easy to automate, but talking to people to find out what really sells is not.
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.
Conducting research to obtain factual information and authentic detail
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Conduct research to obtain factual information and authentic detail, using sources such as newspaper accounts, diaries, and interviews.” (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: Published sources are searchable, but diaries, archives and interviews mean going somewhere and asking people.
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.
Working with staff to develop script
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at staff, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Work with staff to develop script, story, or advertising concepts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Concept development happens in a room with other people building on each other's ideas.
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 3/4.
Writing words to fit musical compositions
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put words well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Write words to fit musical compositions, including lyrics for operas, musical plays, and choral works.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Lyrics have to fit a specific melody and singer, which is worked out with the composer rather than written alone.
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 3/4.
Writing humorous material
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put humorous material well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Write humorous material for publication, or for performances such as comedy routines, gags, and comedy shows.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 33 out of 100 (26–40 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: Comedy depends on timing and surprise that is hard to write down, and AI attempts usually fall flat.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with other writers on specific projects
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles other writers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Collaborate with other writers on specific projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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: Working jointly with another writer is a shared back-and-forth rather than a document anyone can hand 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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Discussing with the client the product
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the client the product and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Discuss with the client the product, advertising themes and methods, and any changes that should be made in advertising copy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (19–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can prepare the notes, but the conversation itself is how the client actually decides what changes.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with other writers on specific projects
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles other writers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Collaborate with other writers on specific projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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: Working jointly with another writer is a shared back-and-forth rather than a document anyone can hand 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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Consulting with sales
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles sales and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Consult with sales, media and marketing representatives to obtain information on product or service and discuss style and length of advertising written material.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (19–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The point of the task is drawing information out of colleagues in conversation, which needs a person doing the asking.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Adapting text to accommodate musical requirements of composers and singers
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles text and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Adapt text to accommodate musical requirements of composers and singers.” (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: Fitting words to what composers and singers can actually perform is worked out with them in rehearsal.
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.
Teaching writing classes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: classes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Teach writing classes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (10–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching a writing class means responding to students in the room as their work develops.
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 3/4.
Attending book launches and publicity events
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: book launches, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Attend book launches and publicity events, or conduct public readings.” (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: A book launch or public reading is the author being physically there, which nothing can stand in for.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $76,910a 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
- 47,940in 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: written material in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: varying language and tone of messages based on product and medium and writing fiction or nonfiction prose. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what drafts 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: varying language and tone of messages based on product and medium is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 51% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 33% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 36 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is presenting drafts and ideas to clients, 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 written material 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 written material, 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 varying language and tone of messages based on product and medium” 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 presenting drafts and ideas to clients 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 writers and authors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was advertising and promotions managers: only about 3% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 51/49: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “conduct research to obtain factual information and authentic detail, using sources”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Advertising and Promotions Managers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already discuss with the client the product, advertising themes and methods, and any changes…, and their equivalent is to confer with department heads or staff to discuss topics. 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.
Art Directors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop advertising campaigns for a wide range of clients, working with an advertising…, and their equivalent is to work with creative directors to develop design solutions. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Advertising Sales Agents
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already review advertising trends, consumer surveys, and other data regarding marketing of goods and…, and their equivalent is to explain to customers how specific types of advertising will help promote their products…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $64,820 against your $76,910, 15.7% 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: 51% of its task weight, across 36 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: presenting drafts and ideas to clients 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 Advertising and marketing associate 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
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Advertising and marketing associate professionals, Authors, writers and translators, Advertising accounts managers and creative directors and Marketing and commercial managers. 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
Two honest options, and no deadline on either
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
A nearby route
There's no Space built for writers and authors yet.
Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.
The closest match is The AI Authority, a community for non-technical managers and domain experts turning one-off AI prompts into workflows a team can trust. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: owning AI-drafted text (verifying the claims in it, keeping it in your own voice, and setting a review gate before anything is sent). It is written for managers and consultants, not for the writing trade: no craft, no commissioning, no rights or publishing. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.
- Problem: “I can use AI, but I can’t turn it into a workflow my team can trust”
- Problem: “I can’t hand off AI work without it falling apart”
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for writers and authors 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 Writers and Authors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 36 official task statements scored for Writers and Authors (United States, SOC 27-3043), 51% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 53 out of 100 (range 48–58, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Writers and Authors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Vary language and tone of messages based on product and medium” (93/100, very high); “Write articles, bulletins, sales letters, speeches, and other related informative, marketing and promotional material” (93/100, very high); “Write advertising material for use by publication, broadcast, or internet media to promote the sale of goods and services” (93/100, 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 “Writers and Authors” stay human?
- About 33% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Attend book launches and publicity events, or conduct public readings” (0/100, minimal); “Teach writing classes” (14/100, minimal); “Adapt text to accommodate musical requirements of composers and singers” (17/100, 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 “Writers and Authors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 51% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 33% 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 Writers and Authors 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 36 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.
- 6 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-with-imputed)
- 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.