Does Generative AI Narrow Education-Based Productivity Gaps? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment
Open accessAbstract
Does generative artificial intelligence (AI) reinforce or reduce productivity differences across workers? Existing evidence largely studies AI within firms and occupations, where organizational selection compresses educational heterogeneity, leaving unclear whether AI narrows productivity gaps across individuals with different levels of education. A related question is whether the productivity gains from AI reflect productive use of the tool or mere delegation, fading once AI is unavailable, and whether the answer differs across education groups. We address both questions using a randomized online experiment outside firms, in which 1,174 adults aged 25–45 complete an incentivized, workplace style business problem-solving task with or without a generative-AI assistant, followed by a non-AI-assisted follow-up module. AI increases performance for all participants, with substantially larger gains for lower-education individuals. In the control group without AI, higher-education participants outperform lower-education participants by 0.548 standard deviations; with AI, this gap falls to 0.139 standard deviations, closing about three-quarters of the initial gap. Chat-log measures explain both why this gap narrows and why it does not disappear: lower-education participants successfully obtain substantial assistance from AI, while higher-education participants use the tool somewhat more effectively across several margins. The follow-up results show that these gains are not purely driven by delegation; treated participants do not perform worse than controls once AI is removed, and lower-education participants retain part of their gain, although a sizable education gap re-emerges. Consistent with this interpretation, intensive use of the assistant produces strong task performance regardless of how much time and effort participants devote themselves, but follow-up performance is substantially higher only when intensive AI use is combined with sustained effort on the task. We interpret these findings as evidence that generative AI narrows effective productivity differences in task execution while underlying human-capital differences continue to shape unassisted performance and effective use of the tool. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A few studies examine whether AI-assisted work improves subsequent unassisted performance, with mixed results.
“A few studies examine whether AI-assisted work improves subsequent unassisted performance, with mixed results.”
From Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Cruces et al. (2026)
Cruces et al. (2026) find that adults with lower levels of education retain some performance gains on an unassisted follow-up task.
“Cruces et al. (2026) find that adults with lower levels of education retain some performance gains on an unassisted follow-up task.”
From Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Cruces et al. (2026)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI
Contractor, Z., & Reyes, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08849
Metacognitive Scaffolds Create Productive Friction for AI-Assisted Knowledge Work
Kewenig, V., Tankelevitch, L., Rintel, S., Sarkar, A., & Sellen, A. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.30945
“…away beyond a “jagged frontier” of suitable tasks [28], and their distribution across expertise depends on the tool, with different studies finding largest gains among less experienced workers [11, 24, 25], more experienced workers [27], and contradictory effects between perception and reality [7].”
Amarante, V., Cruces, G., & Lotitto, E. (2026) · Global Policy · doi:10.1111/1758-5899.70219
Self-citation
- Authors
- Cruces, G., Fernández Meijide, D., Galiani, S., Gálvez, R., & Lombardi, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (AR)
- Corresponding author
- Cruces, Guillermo
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7130375081
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, human capital, delegation, chat logs, task effort, business problem solving
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