Skip to content
man bot
Compare

A closer look

Hairdresser

An app can show you the colour. Someone still has to put it on.

Seven of the eight tasks happen with hands on a client's head, and AI barely touches any of them. The one it could take on is booking appointments and taking payment.

83 / 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

2 of the 20 jobs up close

Why this score?

The ILO rated each task in this job for how much of it AI could do. They average 17.3 out of 100, so the job holds up at 100 − 17.3 = 82.7.

ILO group “Not Exposed”: None of this job's tasks scored high enough to count.

AI helps JSA 2025
47
Usually good news: more of the work gets quicker without the job going away.
AI takes over JSA 2025
24
This is what most people mean by “exposed”. We keep it apart from helping on purpose.
Hands-on O*NET 31.0
45.9
Software can't do hands-on work, but robots might one day. How far they've got isn't on this site, because nobody measures it well enough yet.

from the source Working Paper 140, Generative AI and Jobs 2025 index O*NET 31.0 Our Gen AI Transition (Gen AI Capacity Study) September 2025 detailed data release data 0.8-observed-use

Man v Bot · compare

Who holds up better?

Hairdresser 83

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.

  • Bookings, reminders and stock ordering.
  • Consultation visualisation and colour matching.
  • Marketing and client follow-up.

Man

What people still do better

Judgement, trust and skilled hands. Hard to download.

  • Working on a person who moves, with results that cannot be undone.
  • Reading what someone wants when they cannot describe it.
  • A relationship measured in years of repeat appointments.

Both

What's arriving

New work that only exists because the AI does.

  • Visualising a result before committing to it.
  • Product and technique churn driven by social platforms.
  • Running a small business on thinner margins with better tools.

Written by a human, from the task data. 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 47 of 100.

The robot

The wildcard. Has hands, still working out stairs.

How much it matters here: Some

46 how hands-on

A fair part of this job is hands-on, so robots would be needed for that part, not just software.

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 41 out of 100. The higher it is, the longer the robot waits.

41 How fiddly
and cramped

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

The small print

It isn'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. This is the closest thing we have: how much fiddly handwork and cramped, awkward work the job takes, which is what Frey and Osborne found hardest for machines.

The numbers come straight from the US job database's entry for Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists. Its wider group, Hairdressers, lands in the same place.

finger skill 53.6 · hand skill 53.6 · cramped spaces 15 · hands-on 45.9 · caring 4.3 of 7 · rule: hands-on under 50

from the source O*NET 31.0 data 0.8-observed-use measures chosen by Frey & Osborne (2017) · the grouping is a sorting, not a measurement

So, should hairdressers be worried?

Short answer: not really. Put the kettle on.

No. Seven of the eight tasks happen with hands on a client's head, and all of them rate Very Low. AI takes the bookings and reminders, and helps clients picture a result before committing. A relationship built over years of appointments isn't something software replaces.

Worth remembering: we score tasks, not jobs. When AI takes on a task, the job usually reshuffles around it rather than vanishing. Bank tellers survived the cash machine. The job just got more chatty.

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 →

Fancy a rematch?

Put hairdressers up against another job, then send the result to someone who needs a little humbling.

Where this page's numbers come from