Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Professionals · code 2641

Authors and related writers

AI can write the user guide. Writing something people actually want to read is still a writer.

AI could take a fair chunk of four of the six tasks, led by editing and writing manuals and instructions. Writing novels, plays and scripts is mostly out of its reach.

What they actually do (and what else they get called)

Authors and related writers plan, research and write books, scripts, storyboards, plays, essays, speeches, manuals, specifications and other non-journalistic articles (excluding material for newspapers, magazines and other periodicals) for publication or presentation. Tasks include - (a) conceiving, writing and editing novels, plays, scripts, poetry and other material for publication or presentation; (b) conducting research to establish factual content and to obtain other necessary information; (c) writing scripts and continuities and preparing programmes for stage, film, radio and television productions; (d) analysing material, such as specifications, notes and drawings, and creating manuals, instructions for use, user guides and other documents to explain clearly and concisely the installation, operation and maintenance of software, electronic, mechanical and other equipment; (e) writing brochures, handbooks and similar technical publications; (f) selecting material for publication, checking style, grammar and accuracy of content, arranging for any necessary revisions and checking proof copies before printing. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Author - Book editor - Essayist - Indexer - Interactive media writer - Novelist - Playwright - Poet - Script writer - Speech writer - Technical communicator - Technical writer - Writer Some related occupations classified elsewhere: - Advertising copy writer - 2431 - Public relations copy writer - 2432 - Journalist - 2642 - Newspaper editor - 2642

  • literary scholar
  • book editor
  • dramaturge
  • writer

Job titles from the EU's ESCO list. Search for any of them on the jobs page and you'll end up here.

46 / 100

Changing significantly

AI could do a real share of the everyday tasks. The job is changing shape, not vanishing.

Not the odds you keep your job. It's how much of the everyday work still needs a person, out of 100.

← Robot's turf Human's turf →

The ILO's official verdict: Exposed: Gradient 3

393 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 6 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 54.5 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 54.5 = 45.5.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Exposed: Gradient 3”: Most of the tasks are affected.

This job rates 16.4 out of 100 for how hands-on it is. The score above only looks at AI tools, not robots, but for work this far from the physical that matters less.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Authors and related writers 46

v

Go on, try your partner's job. Or your sibling's. We won't tell.

Man v Bot

Where the bot helps, and where the human wins

Bot

What AI takes

The routine stuff. You may not miss it.

  • Manuals and user guides.
  • Brochures and handbooks.
  • Editing and research.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Original stories and ideas.
  • A distinctive voice.
  • Editorial judgement.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Editing AI-generated text.
  • Rules on AI and copyright.
  • Content design roles.

Written by a human, from the ILO's task ratings below. Yes, we see the irony. Read it as one person's take.

Meet your two rivals

They're not the same machine. AI software can only reach the parts of a job done on a screen or in words. A chatbot can't climb a ladder. A robot might, one day, if it doesn't fall off.

The AI

Lives in a screen. Never had to fix a boiler.

Threat level: Medium

58 could do without you

It could take over some of the work, and help with more. It could help with 70 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Lower

16 how hands-on

Not much of this job needs hands, so the robot can sit this one out.

So could a robot do the physical part?

Less than half of this job is hands-on. Robots still matter, but for a smaller part of the work, so we don't sort it any further.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 14 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

16 How
hands-on
14 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Less than half hands-on

The small print

They aren't a robot score, and nothing on this page is. Nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to put a number on it. These are the closest thing we have: how hands-on the job is, and how much fiddly, cramped work it takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

From O*NET, averaged across 4 US jobs .

finger skill 25.6 · hand skill 15.1 · cramped spaces 2.5 · averaged · rule: hands-on under 50

estimated O*NET 31.0 BLS occupational crosswalk chain ISCO-08 to 2010 SOC (Aug 2012, rev. Jun 2015); 2010 to 2018 SOC (Nov 2017); O*NET-SOC 2019 taxonomy data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

The job, task by task

Every job is really a bundle of tasks. Here's this one unpacked, with how much of each AI could do, out of 100. The score is the average, and averages can hide a lot.

AI's favourite task here scores 66, against an average of 55. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 66

    Selecting material for publication, checking style, grammar and accuracy of content, arranging for any necessary revisions and checks proof copies before printing.

    Medium
  2. 63

    Analysing material, such as specifications, notes and drawings, and creating manuals, instructions for use, user guides and other documents to explain clearly and concisely the installation, operation and maintenance of software, electronic, mechanical and other equipment

    Medium
  3. 56

    Writing brochures, handbooks and similar technical publications

    Medium
  4. 55

    Conducting research to establish factual content and to obtain other necessary information

    Medium
  5. 45

    Conceiving, writing and editing novels, plays, scripts, poetry and other material for publication or presentation

    Low
  6. 43

    Writing scripts and continuities and preparing programmes for stage, film, radio and television productions

    Low

6 tasks · the High to Very Low labels are the ILO's

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.8-observed-use

Sidekick or replacement?

A tool that makes you faster is a very different thing from one that does the task while you watch. Jobs and Skills Australia measured the two separately, which is handy.

AI helps you
70
AI does it for you
58

Sidekick wins, by 12 points.

How good a match is this?

2 Australian jobs match this one, and we've simply averaged them. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use matched to Australian jobs 2122, 2124

Meanwhile, in real life…

Everything else here is about what AI could do. This is what people actually did. When they asked Claude for help with this kind of work, did they hand the whole task over, or roll their sleeves up and work through it together?

Out of every 100 conversations

67
33

worked through it together handed it over

The small print

Anthropic publishes this about its own product, and it doesn't feed into any score here. These are people who use Claude, not workers in general, so little use here doesn't mean AI can't reach the job. This job makes up 6.47% of the conversations.

The data is sorted by US job, and this one matches 3 of them. We've combined them, counting each by how often it comes up in the conversations, so the busiest one counts most.

These two add up to 100. The bars elsewhere on the page don't, because each is scored on its own, so we don't put them side by side.

observed use Anthropic Economic Index release 2026-06-26, period beginning 2026-05-01 data 0.8-observed-use 2026-05-01 · Anthropic, about its own product

So, should writers and editors be worried?

Short answer: not worried, but paying attention. The job is changing.

Parts of the job are exposed. Editing, manuals, technical publications and research are rated Medium; novels, plays and scripts are Low. Technical and routine writing is most exposed; creative writing and editorial judgement less so.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing.

Where this job could lead

How are the neighbours doing?

There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” family, averaging 62. This one is below the family average.

Pit this against any other job →