The BaseResearcharXiv
Generative AI at Work
Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond (arXiv version of their 2025 Quarterly Journal of Economics paper) study a GPT-based chat assistant introduced in stages to 5,172 customer-support agents at one company. They report 15% more issues resolved per hour on average, with the largest gains for less experienced agents, and say the data cannot show wage or employment effects.
Open the source ↗Top story of the week
Why it matters
The same thing, for different readers.
What it means for you
In one company's support center, an AI assistant helped newer and lower-skilled workers most and top performers little, though the study cannot say whether pay, hours or jobs changed.
For lawmakers
Gains can narrow gaps between workers inside one firm, but the study measures no wage, hiring or layoff effects, so it cannot alone guide training or labor-market policy.
For researchers
A staggered rollout across 5,172 agents shows larger gains for novices, but covers one tool, one firm and one occupation, with no pay data.
The question it raises
The authors ask whether workers whose practices train an AI system should be paid for that data, since the tool may dull top performers' incentive to contribute new solutions.
In their own words
Every quotation was found, word for word, in the text we saved from the source. That shows the words are there; it does not make them true, or prove the speaker meant them as quoted.
From the source’s own text.
“Access to AI assistance increases worker productivity, as measured by issues resolved per hour, by 15% on average, with substantial heterogeneity across workers.”
Found word for word in the source
“Less experienced and lower-skilled workers improve both the speed and quality of their output while the most experienced and highest-skilled workers see small gains in speed and small declines in quality.”
Found word for word in the source
“We emphasize, however, that these findings capture medium run impacts within a single firm: our paper is not designed to shed light on the aggregate employment or wage effects of generative AI tools.”
Found word for word in the source
“If customer demand for assistance is inelastic, then the productivity gains we document will likely translate into less demand for human labor. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the firm could field the same number of customer support issues with 12% fewer worker-hours.”
Found word for word in the source
“First, we note again that our findings apply for a particular AI tool, used in a single firm, within a single occupation, and should not be generalized across all occupations and AI systems.”
Found word for word in the source
How the finding was reached
In our words, from the source. Weigh the finding by how it was made.
- What was done
- A staggered, agent-by-agent rollout of a GPT-based chat assistant (suggested replies and links to documentation, which agents could ignore) at a Fortune 500 business-software firm and its subcontractors, mostly in the fall of 2020 and winter of 2021. Productivity before and after access is compared across 5,172 customer-support agents and about 3 million chats (difference-in-differences), with a small randomized pilot of about 50 workers as a check.
- What it found
- Access raised issues resolved per hour by 15% on average (0.30 more chats an hour, 15.2% in the preferred specification). The paper puts the gain at about 30% for less-skilled and less-experienced agents (36% in the lowest skill quintile) and finds minimal impact for the most experienced or skilled agents, whose conversation quality fell slightly. Agents with two months of tenure and AI assistance performed as well as untreated agents with more than six months. Average resolution rates and surveyed customer satisfaction showed no economically significant change. Customer sentiment improved by about half a standard deviation, requests to speak to a manager fell by almost 25%, and attrition among agents with under six months of tenure fell by about 10 percentage points, a result the authors say calls for more caution.
- What it does not show
- One AI tool, one firm and one occupation, over the short to medium run; the authors say the findings should not be generalized. The data hold no pay information and cannot show changes in overall labor demand or in the skill mix of new hires. The authors add that if customer demand is inelastic the gains would likely mean less demand for human labor (their rough calculation: the same issues handled with 12% fewer worker-hours), while better service could instead raise demand for support and for labor. Managers chose who was trained first, which the authors address with an instrumental-variable check and the pilot. The text-similarity analysis is described as only suggestive.
- Status
- Peer reviewed. The paper says several lab-like studies (by Noy and Zhang, Choi and Schwarcz, Peng and co-authors, and Dell'Acqua and co-authors) find the same pattern of gains concentrated among lower-skill workers, and calls itself the first study of longer-term effects in a real workplace.
The record
- Questions
- What happens to work, income and the economy?
- People
- Erik Brynjolfsson (Wrote it, Stanford & NBER) · Danielle Li (Wrote it, MIT & NBER) · Lindsey Raymond (Wrote it, MIT)
- Also covered by
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- What we read
- We read the whole source.
- Found by
- A research pass: work, income and the economy, gathered October 13, 2026, via
research-work(tier 1: the source’s own channel or an official record) - Cite this
- arXiv, “Generative AI at Work”, November 6, 2024. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/arxiv-2024-11-06-generative-ai-at-work-support-agents
Our notesVersion read: arXiv v2, stamped 6 Nov 2024 (the title page in the PDF says November 7, 2024). The HTML rendering shows August 24, 2026 under the authors' names, which is a build date, not the paper's. The paper appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Economics 140(2), pages 889-942 (doi 10.1093/qje/qjae044); Crossref gives 4 Feb 2025 as the online date (the triage date) and 8 Apr 2025 for print. The journal page returned 403, so the journal text was not read. The journal abstract differs from the v2 abstract in places (it says gains are largest for moderately rare problems where the system still has adequate training data, where v2 says relatively rare problems, and it adds that effects vary significantly across agents), while the main figures match (5,172 agents, 15%); check the journal text before relying on details beyond those. The roughly 30% gain for less experienced and lower-skilled agents is in the introduction, not the abstract; the lowest skill quintile is 36%. The paper gives the adherence rate as 35% in one place and 38% in another, so it is not used here. The saved text is the arXiv HTML rendering, with footnote numbers inside some sentences; the quotations avoid them.