PreprintCited by 2,157Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Experimental Evidence on the Productivity Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Noy, Shakked, Zhang, Whitney·2023·Science

Abstract

We examine the productivity effects of a generative artificial intelligence technology—the assistive chatbot ChatGPT—in the context of mid-level professional writing tasks. In a preregistered online experiment, we assign occupation-specific, incentivized writing tasks to 444 college-educated professionals, and randomly expose half of them to ChatGPT. Our results show that ChatGPT substantially raises average productivity: time taken decreases by 0.8 SDs and output quality rises by 0.4 SDs. Inequality between workers decreases, as ChatGPT compresses the productivity distribution by benefiting low-ability workers more. ChatGPT mostly substitutes for worker effort rather than complementing worker skills, and restructures tasks towards idea-generation and editing and away from rough-drafting. Exposure to ChatGPT increases job satisfaction and self-efficacy and heightens both concern and excitement about automation technologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4375283

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Evidence from existing laboratory experiments generally suggests significant productivity effects of generative AI tools for software developers.

    “Evidence from existing (laboratory) experiments generally suggests significant productivity effects of generative AI tools for software developers.”
  • Randomized trials show large productivity gains for users.

    “randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrate substantial productivity gains for users”
  • Randomized trials find productivity gains above 15% in the occupations studied here.

    “significant productivity gains-often exceeding 15%-documented by RCTs in our study occupations”
  • Reported time savings are highest in occupations covered by RCTs, including customer and IT support, marketing and human resources, and software development.

    “First, our reported time savings are highest precisely in the occupations covered by RCTs, such as customer and IT support (Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, 2025), marketing and human resources (Noy and Zhang, 2023), and software development (Peng et al., 2023).”
  • Generative AI is heralded as the engine of a new industrial revolution, yet evidence on its economic impacts outside laboratory settings and case studies is lacking.

    “Generative AI is heralded as the engine of a new industrial revolution (World Economic Forum, 2024), yet we lack evidence on its economic impacts outside laboratory settings and case studies (Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, 2025; Noy and Zhang, 2023).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noy, S., & Zhang, W.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Noy, Shakked
Venue
Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
Volume
381
Issue
6654
Pages
187-192
ISSN
0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4384154918
Cited by
2,157
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 991 · 2025: 639 · 2024: 406 · 2023: 116 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
437.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, productivity, professional writing, artificial intelligence adoption, output quality, task completion time, attitudes toward AI, workplace technology use

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