Skip to content
man bot

Professionals · code 2659

Creative and performing artists not elsewhere classified

This unit group covers all creative and performing artists not classified elsewhere in Minor Group 265: Creative and Performing Artists. For instance, the group includes clowns, magicians, acrobats and other performing artists. In such cases tasks would include - (a) performing amusing antics and telling funny stories; (b) performing tricks of illusion and sleight of hand, and feats of hypnotism; (c) performing difficult and spectacular acrobatics, and gymnastic or juggling feats; (d) training and performing with animals. Examples of the occupations classified here: - Acrobat - Aerialist - Clown - Hypnotist - Magician - Puppeteer - Stand-up comedian - Ventriloquist

None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count. It ranks 44 of 427 for holding up against AI.

Also known as

  • tourist animator
  • performance artist
  • street artist
  • community artist

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

87.1
Holds up
against AI Not Exposed

AI could take on 12.9 of 100, on average
so it holds up at 100 − 12.9 = 87.1

That's the whole sum, and you can check it against the ILO's study.

61
How hands-on
out of 100

From O*NET, matched to one US job

31.9
How fiddly
and cramped

finger skill 39.3 · hand skill 37.4 · cramped spaces 19 · averaged

Kind of hands-on work · hands-on 50+ · fiddly under 39.4 Hands-on, less fiddly work

Less fine handwork and fewer cramped spaces than a typical hands-on job. That clears one hurdle for machines. It doesn't mean machines are doing this work yet.

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 0.7-work-setting measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

This number is probably too high

This score only looks at AI tools like chatbots. It doesn't look at robots at all — and this job rates 61 out of 100 for how hands-on it is, which is exactly where robots come in.

Have a look at the tasks below and judge for yourself. The ILO scored them low because a chatbot can't do them. Whether a machine with hands could is a different question, and we can't answer it yet.

The tasks behind the score

The score is the average of these. A job is really a bundle of tasks, and an average can hide how uneven that bundle is.

The task AI could do most of scores 18.3, while the average is 12.9. A big gap means some of this job is wide open to AI and some of it barely at all. That's quite different from a job where everything sits somewhere in the middle, even when the averages match.

  1. 18.3

    Training and performing with animals.

    Very Low
  2. 17.5

    Performing amusing antics and telling funny stories

    Very Low
  3. 11.3

    Performing tricks of illusion and sleight of hand, and feats of hypnotism

    Very Low
  4. 4.8

    Performing difficult and spectacular acrobatics, and gymnastic or juggling feats

    Very Low

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

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index data 0.7-work-setting

Helped, or replaced?

The score above can't tell a tool that makes you faster from one that does the task instead of you. Jobs and Skills Australia looked at those two things separately, and this is their result, matched to this job.

One Australian job matches, but only partly: not everyone in it does this job. Treat the numbers as a rough guide.

AI helps you
58
AI does it for you
24

Helping wins by 34 points.

estimated Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.7-work-setting matched to Australian jobs 2111

Compared with similar jobs

There are 92 jobs in the “Professionals” group, averaging 61. This one is above that.