The adoption of ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
We study the adoption of ChatGPT, the icon of Generative AI, using a large-scale survey experiment linked to comprehensive register data in Denmark. Surveying 100,000 workers from 11 exposed occupations, we document ChatGPT is pervasive: half of workers have used it, with younger, less experienced, higher-achieving, and especially male workers leading the curve. Why have some workers adopted ChatGPT, and others not? Workers see a substantial productivity potential in ChatGPT but are often hindered by employer restrictions and required training. Informing workers about expert assessments of ChatGPT shifts workers’ beliefs and intentions but has limited impacts on actual adoption.
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
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?
The launch of ChatGPT is widely regarded as a milestone in the mainstream adoption of GenAI.
“Although ChatGPT was not the first publicly available AI chatbot, we used its launch as the cut-off point because it is widely regarded as a milestone in the mainstream adoption of GenAI 22,23,24,25 .”
From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 18 · Cited by 26
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Abadie, Alberto. 2003. 'Semiparametric Instrumental Variable Estimation of Treatment Response Models.' Journal of Econometrics , 113(2): 231-263.
- Agrawal, Ajay, Joshua S Gans, and Avi Goldfarb. 2023. 'Artificial Intelligence Adoption and System-Wide Change.' Journal of Economics & Management Strategy .
- Babina, Tania, Anastassia Fedyk, Alex He, and James Hodson. 2024. 'Artificial Intelligence, Firm Growth, and Product Innovation.' Journal of Financial Economics , 151: 103745.
- Eisfeldt, Andrea L, Gregor Schubert, Miao Ben Zhang, and Bledi Taska. 2024. 'The Labor Impact of Generative AI on Firm Values.' Available at SSRN 4436627 .
- Eloundou, Tyna, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2023. 'GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models.' arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10130 . · arXiv
- Goldfarb, Avi, Bledi Taska, and Florenta Teodoridis. 2023. 'Could Machine Learning Be a General Purpose Technology? A Comparison of Emerging Technologies Using Data from Online Job Postings.' Research Policy , 52(1): 104653.
- Groes, Fane, Philipp Kircher, and Iourii Manovskii. 2015. 'The U-Shapes of Occupational Mobility.' The Review of Economic Studies , 82(2): 659-692.
- Gronau, Reuben. 1974. 'Wage Comparisons-a Selectivity Bias.' Journal of Political Economy , 82(6): 1119-1143.
- Heckman, James J. 1979. 'Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. ' Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society , 153-161.
- Heckman, James J, and Edward Vytlacil. 2005. 'Structural Equations, Treatment E ects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation 1.' Econometrica , 73(3): 669-738.
- Hvidberg, Kristo er B, Claus T Kreiner, and Stefanie Stantcheva. 2023. 'Social Positions and Fairness Views on Inequality.' Review of Economic Studies , 90(6): 30833118.
- J¨ ager, Simon, Christopher Roth, Nina Roussille, and Benjamin Schoefer. 2024. 'Worker Beliefs About Outside Options.' The Quarterly Journal of Economics , qjae001.
- McElheran, Kristina, J Frank Li, Erik Brynjolfsson, Zachary Kro , Emin Dinlersoz, Lucia Foster, and Nikolas Zolas. 2024. 'AI Adoption in America: Who, What, and Where.' Journal of Economics & Management Strategy .
- Otis, Nicholas, Rowan P Clarke, Solene Delecourt, David Holtz, and Rembrand Koning. 2024. 'The Uneven Impact of Generative AI on Entrepreneurial Performance.' Available at SSRN 4671369 .
- Authors
- Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Humlum, Anders
- ORCID
- Vestergaard, Emilie
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4395481328
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI adoption, artificial intelligence in the workplace, expert opinion, gender differences in technology adoption
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
