Skip to content
man bot
Compare

Professionals · code 2659

Creative and performing artists not elsewhere classified

AI can write a joke. It can't juggle, train an animal or read a crowd.

AI barely touches any of the four tasks: working with animals, clowning, magic tricks and acrobatics. Good luck to it.

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

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

  • 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 / 100

Strongly holds up against AI

Most of this job still needs an actual human. AI would mostly be making the tea.

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: Not Exposed

44 of 427 for holding up against AI

Why this score?

The ILO rated each of this job's 4 tasks for how much of it AI could do. They average 12.9 out of 100, so it holds up at 100 − 12.9 = 87.1.

That's the whole sum. No black box, no secret sauce: you can check it against the ILO's study. ILO group “Not Exposed”: None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count.

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

Pinch of salt: this number is probably too rosy

It only asks what AI software could do, and this job is 61 out of 100 hands-on. A chatbot can't do that part. A robot might, one day, and nobody measures how close that is.

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Creative and performing artists not elsewhere classified 87

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.

  • Promotion, social posts and booking enquiries.
  • Writing and testing new material.
  • Scheduling tours and events.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Performing live and reading the audience.
  • Physical skill built over years.
  • Improvising when things go wrong.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Mixing live performance with digital effects.
  • Building audiences through short videos.
  • Immersive and community events.

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: Low

24 could do without you

It could take over very little of the work on its own. It could help with 58 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Higher

61 how hands-on

Most of this job needs hands, a body or turning up. That's robot territory, and nobody measures how far robots have got well enough to give you a number. We won't make one up.

So could a robot do the physical part?

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.

Robots hate fiddly work in awkward spaces. On that measure, this job scores 32 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

61 How
hands-on
32 How fiddly
and cramped

Kind of hands-on work Hands-on, less fiddly work

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, matched to one US job .

finger skill 39.3 · hand skill 37.4 · cramped spaces 19 · averaged · rule: hands-on 50+ · fiddly under 39.4

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 18, against an average of 13. The bigger the gap, the more lopsided the job: some of it wide open to AI, some of it barely touched.

  1. 18

    Training and performing with animals.

    Very Low
  2. 18

    Performing amusing antics and telling funny stories

    Very Low
  3. 11

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

    Very Low
  4. 5

    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 0.8-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
58
AI does it for you
24

Sidekick wins, by 34 points.

How good a match is this?

One Australian job matches, but only partly: not everyone in it does this job. 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 2111

So, should street and circus performers be worried?

Short answer: not really. Put the kettle on.

No. Every task rates Very Low: acrobatics, magic, clowning and working with animals. AI can help with promotion and bookings. Live performance is the point, and that stays human.

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

None of the new jobs we've written up start from here yet. Could be you're the first. See the jobs AI is creating →

How are the neighbours doing?

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

Pit this against any other job →