Free sampler. Re-scored every six months.
Production and execution design scores 8.4 out of 10 for AI exposure — the highest score of any career in this index, where 10 is most at risk. Creative direction scores 5.6, and UX and product design 6.0. This is the profession where AI took the craft itself rather than the paperwork around it, which is why it hurts differently here than anywhere else.
The short answer for parents: not for production work. A design degree aimed at making assets is the single riskiest path we score. It is defensible aimed explicitly at creative direction, at UX and product design, or at design paired with a domain — but those are different destinations that require different training.
Every career in this index is scored 1–10, where 10 is most exposed to AI. Same six factors, same weights, applied identically to a designer and a paramedic.
| Graphic Design track | 2023 | 2025 | Now | 3-yr move | Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creative direction / brand identity | 4.8 | 5.2 | 5.6 | +0.8 | Moderate |
| UX / product design | 5.2 | 5.6 | 6.0 | +0.8 | Moderate |
| Motion, 3D & technical craft | 5.9 | 6.5 | 7.0 | +1.1 | Mod–High |
| Illustration / commercial art | 6.3 | 7.0 | 7.5 | +1.2 | High |
| Production / execution design | 6.7 | 7.8 | 8.4 | +1.7 | High |
2023 and 2025 figures are reconstructed using current methodology, not archived from past editions.
For scalethe median career in this edition scores around 5.5. Entry-level software development scores 8.1. Content marketing execution scores 8.2. Bedside nursing scores 2.8.
Production design at 8.4 is the highest score we assign to any career, and it moved +1.7 in three years from an already elevated base.
It has already replaced a substantial share of what production designers were paid to do.
The distinction is between making and directing. A generative system can produce a thousand options. It cannot decide which one is right for this brand, this market, this moment — and it cannot be accountable for the choice.
How production and execution design rates against each. Ratings are 0–10 on each factor's own terms.
So you can see what the analysis actually looks like.
How much of this job can AI already do? — rated 9.1
Everywhere else in this index, the automatable layer is the administrative shell around the work. Nurses chart. Doctors write notes. Teachers mark. Lawyers draft. In every one of those cases, automation removes something people resented and leaves the work they trained for.
Design is the exception, and it is why this profession feels different from the inside. The automatable layer here is the craft. Making the image, building the layout, producing the asset — that was not the paperwork around design. It was design.
That is what a 9.1 means. Not that the profession is worthless, but that the specific activity most designers spend most of their day performing is now something a non-designer can do adequately in seconds.
We rate it 9.1 rather than 10 because output quality still varies enormously with the skill of the person directing it, and because production at a professional standard still requires judgment about what "good" looks like. But that judgment is a directing skill, not a making skill — and directing is a smaller job that fewer people are needed for.
This is also why our creative direction track sits at 5.6 rather than 8.4. Direction was never the automatable layer. It was always taste, intent and accountability, and none of those have moved much.
The general lesson, and it applies well beyond design: ask whether the automatable part of a job is the part you would enjoy. In most professions it isn't, and automation is a gift. In this one it is, and that changes the honest advice from "the field is fine" to "the field is fine and the job you pictured may not be."
Ranked by exposure, safest first:
It deserves stating properly, because it has history on its side.
When desktop publishing arrived, designers feared replacement by "anyone with a mouse." The field expanded instead, and produced entirely new subfields — UX, digital branding, product design — that had not previously existed. On this reading, generative AI is the next iteration of a tool shift the profession has repeatedly absorbed, and our 8.4 mistakes a transition for a collapse.
We take it seriously, and it is part of why our direction track sits at 5.6 rather than 8.
But there is a difference worth naming between a tool that changes how work is produced and one that produces the work itself. Photoshop still needed a designer at the keyboard for every asset. Generation does not.
The honest position is that we do not know whether new creative categories will appear fast enough to absorb the displaced production tier. History says probably something will, and offers no guarantee about timing. A graduate needs a job in the meantime, and the transition is exactly when the pain lands.
Only in specific forms.
The version that does not work is a design degree aimed at production employment. That is what a large share of design programs still train for, and it is the highest-scoring career in this index.
The versions that do:
The portfolio question has changed completely. Volume of polished work no longer signals anything, because volume is free. What signals value now is evidence of judgment: why this direction, what was rejected, and what happened when it shipped.
This sampler tells you where design stands. The full profile tells you what to do about it.
Most families are weighing two or three careers seriously, and a few more they haven’t ruled out. Pick the ones you need.
Each includes a short version written directly to the student and the technical scoring appendix. Spring 2027 updates of whatever you buy are included.
Read one complete profile free → We publish computer science in full so you can judge the depth before buying anything.