The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative AI is already widespread in the public sector: evidence from a survey of UK public sector professionals
Abstract
Generative AI has the potential to transform how public services are delivered by enhancing productivity and reducing time spent on bureaucracy. But to what extent is the technology already in use? Our survey of UK public service professionals (in education, health, social work, and emergency services) seeks to answer this question. We find that use of generative AI is widespread: 45% of respondents were aware of colleagues using generative AI, while 22% use it themselves. Respondents were positive about its potential to enhance their efficiency and reduce their bureaucratic workload. For example, those working in the health service thought that time spent on bureaucracy could drop by the equivalent of one day per week, an enormous potential impact. Our survey also found a high amount of trust (61%) in generative AI and a low fear of replacement (16%). However, only a minority of respondents (32%) felt like there was clear guidance on generative AI usage in their workplaces. In other words, it is clear that generative AI is already coming into the public sector, but uptake is happening in a disorganised fashion without clear guidelines. The UK’s public sector urgently needs to develop more systematic methods for taking advantage of the technology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Notwithstanding this assumption, some authors have argued that in the present day, traditional public sector policy-making, service provision, and governance procedures can be rapidly transformed with the introduction of GenAI technologies (Bright et al., 2024;Salah et al., 2023).”
From Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe (2025) · cites this paper as Bright et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611 · cited 1×
“The economic and societal impacts of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems have received significant attention [13], but few studies have examined how such systems are used in the public sector, and how they are impacting operational public sector workers, or ‘street-level bureaucrats’…”
Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01099-5 · Cited by 238
Selten, F., Robeer, M., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13602 · Cited by 153
Rethinking AI for good governance
Margetts, H. (2022) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/daed_a_01922 · Cited by 60
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Ada Lovelace Institute and The Alan Turing Institute. 2023. How do People Feel about AI? A Nationally Representative Survey of Public Attitudes to Artificial Intelligence in Britain. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/public-attitudes-ai/
- Mike Alva. 2021. Impact of AI on Decision-makers. Retrieved from https://info.kpmg.us/news-perspectives/technology-innovation/thriving-in-an-ai-world/ai-adoption-government.html
- 10.1787/726fd39d-en · DOI
- Jonathan Bright Bharath Ganesh Cathrine Seidelin and Thomas M. Vogl. 2019. Data science for local government. SSRN Electronic Journal (2019). 10.2139/ssrn.3370217 · DOI
- Ian Brown. 2023. Expert Explainer: Allocating Accountability in AI Supply Chains. Resource. Ada Lovelace Institute. Retrieved from https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/resource/ai-supply-chains/
- Erik Brynjolfsson Danielle Li and Lindsey R. Raymond. 2023. Generative AI at Work. 10.3386/w31161 · DOI · Paper page
- Timothy T. Campbell. 2024. The four-day work week: A chronological systematic review of the academic literature. Management Review Quarterly 74 (2024) 1791–1807. 10.1007/s11301-023-00347-3 · DOI
- 10.1145/3593013.3594073 · DOI
- Michael Lipsky. 2010. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (30th anniversary expanded edition). Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.
- 10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/14719037.2013.841978 · DOI · Paper page
- Peter Viechnicki and William D. Eggers. 2017. How Much Time and Money Can AI Save Government?Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3834_How-much-time-and-money-can-AI-save-government/DUP_How-much-time-and-money-can-AI-save-government.pdf
- 10.6531/JFS.2016.21(2).R83 · doi:10.6531/jfs.2016.21(2).r83
- BigScience Workshop Teven Le Scao Angela Fan Christopher Akiki Ellie Pavlick Suzana Ilić Daniel Hesslow Roman Castagné Alexandra Sasha Luccioni François Yvon Matthias Gallé et al. 2023. BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05100arXiv:2211.05100.
Cited by
Generative AI Literacy: Twelve Defining Competencies
Annapureddy, R., Fornaroli, A., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2025) · Digital Government: Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3685680 · Cited by 333
Exploring the Challenges of Generative AI on Public Sector Communication in Europe
Lovari, A., & De Rosa, F. (2025) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.9644 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Bright, J., Enock, F., Esnaashari, S., Francis, J., Hashem, Y., & Morgan, D.
- Affiliations
- The Alan Turing Institute, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Venue
- Digital Government: Research and Practice
- Published
- 2025-02-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-13
- ISSN
- 2691-199X
- 2639-0175
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
