Cited by 995Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityAI and HR TechnologiesAI in Service Interactions

Generative AI at Work

Open access
Brynjolfsson, Erik, Li, Danielle, Raymond, Lindsey·2023·National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract

We study the staggered introduction of a generative AI-based conversational assistant using data from 5,179 customer support agents.Access to the tool increases productivity, as measured by issues resolved per hour, by 14 percent on average, with the greatest impact on novice and lowskilled workers, and minimal impact on experienced and highly skilled workers.We provide suggestive evidence that the AI model disseminates the potentially tacit knowledge of more able workers and helps newer workers move down the experience curve.In addition, we show that AI assistance improves customer sentiment, reduces requests for managerial intervention, and improves employee retention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w31161

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

  • Finding
    § ABSTRACT

    Access to the AI tool increases productivity, measured by issues resolved per hour, by 14% on average.

    “Access to the tool increases productivity, as measured by issues resolved per hour, by 14% on average”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding
    § ABSTRACT

    AI assistance improves customer sentiment, increases employee retention, and may lead to worker learning.

    “In addition, we find that AI assistance improves customer sentiment, increases employee retention, and may lead to worker learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding
    § 5 Adherence, Learning, and Conversational Change

    Access to AI assistance changes the content of what agents write and makes low-skill workers communicate more like high-skill workers.

    “We document within-agent changes in communication following AI deployment, with larger changes for lower-skill workers. Acrossperson, we show that these changes increase the similarity of communication patterns between lowand high-skill agents.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding
    § 5 Adherence, Learning, and Conversational Change

    Exposure to AI leads to durable changes in worker skills, as workers continue to perform better during outages.

    “Using information on software outages in which AI assistance is temporarily unavailable, we provide evidence that exposure to AI leads to durable changes in worker skills. We find that workers exposed to AI recommendations continue to perform better during outages”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding
    § 5 Adherence, Learning, and Conversational Change

    Workers follow AI recommendations about 35% to 38% of the time on average.

    “we show that workers are selective about the recommendations they adopt, following the recommendations 35% on average.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified

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?

  • Generative AI models often require significant computational power and resources for training and inference such as GPUs or cloud computing services.

    “Generative AI models often require significant computational power and resources for training and inference such as GPUs or cloud computing services [8, 15].”

    From Generative AI in healthcare: an implementation science informed translational path on application, integration and governance (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Technical Primer (section 1.1; page not provided) says that pre-training an LLM requires thousands of GPUs and weeks to months of dedicated training time, supporting the claim about substantial training resources. The passages do not establish comparable resource requirements for inference or mention cloud computing services. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Generative AI technologies like GANs and LLMs are complex to understand and implement.

    “However, generative AI technologies like GANs and LLMs are complex to understand and implement [8].”

    From Generative AI in healthcare: an implementation science informed translational path on application, integration and governance (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Technical Primer (§1.1; page unavailable) describes substantial resources needed to pre-train an LLM, supporting a narrower claim that building one is demanding. It does not say that LLMs are difficult to understand or discuss GANs, so it does not support the full claim. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Generative AI assistance reduces the 'skill gap' by providing the largest benefits for the weakest students.

    “matching prior findings that generative AI assistance reduces the “skill gap” by providing the largest benefits for the weakest students (7–9).”

    From Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics (2025) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 4.2 reports the largest productivity gain for customer-support workers in the lowest skill quintile and no gain for the most skilled workers. This supports a narrowing of the skill gap among workers, but the paper does not study students, so it does not support that population-specific part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLM can be used to summarize and synthesize vast amounts of information, manage customer inquiries, support organizational decision-making and generate technical and creative content.

    “LLM can be used to summarize and synthesize vast amounts of information (eg, legislative analysis tools), manage customer inquiries (eg, chatbot customer service applications), support organizational decision-making (eg, resume screening and job matching platforms) and generate technical and creative content (eg, content ideation tools) (17–21).”

    From Large language model exposure and precarious occupations: Unpacking relationships in the Canadian labor force (2026) · cites this paper as [17]

    Section 1.2 describes LLM tools that summarize legal documents and research and perform coding, writing, and graphic-design tasks. Section 2.1 describes their use in customer support. The passages do not support the organizational decision-making example of resume screening and job matching. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the three studies of writing, customer service and software coding, AI tools supplemented expertise rather than displaced experts.

    “In all three instances, AI tools supplemented expertise rather than displaced experts.”

    From Applying AI to Rebuild Middle Class Jobs (2024) · cites this paper as Brynjolfsson et al., 2023

    The paper’s Abstract says the customer-service tool was designed to augment agents, who remained responsible for conversations and could ignore its suggestions. It does not establish the same conclusion for the writing and coding studies. It also says the study was not designed to assess aggregate employment effects, so it cannot establish that experts were not displaced. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • US agent share conflicts with the stated share abroad

    Minor

    The text says 83 percent of agents are outside the United States, implying 17 percent are in the United States. Table 1 instead reports a US share of 11 percent for all agents.

  • Manager-request result is assigned to the wrong table column

    Minor

    The text attributes the decline in manager requests to Column 1 of Table 5, but Column 1 reports attrition. Manager requests are in Column 2; the subsequent discussion likewise assigns transfers to Column 2 although they are in Column 3.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]2. and Pascual Restrepo, "Low-Skill and High-Skill Automation," Journal of Human Capital, June 2018, 12 (2), 204-232.
  2. [4]4. Philippe Aghion, Claire Lelarge, John Van Reenen, and Fabrizio Zilibotti, "Tech- nology, Information, and the Decentralization of the Firm*," The Quarterly Journal of Eco- nomics, November 2007, 122 (4), 1759-1799. _eprint: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article- pdf/122/4/1759/5234557/122-4-1759.pdf.
  3. [57]57. Polanyi, Michael, The Tacit Dimension, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, May 1966.
  4. [61]61. Rosen, Sherwin, "The Economics of Superstars," The American Economic Review, 1981, 71 (5), 845-858.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2023-04
OpenAlex
W4366817968
Cited by
995
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 287 · 2025: 301 · 2024: 352 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
generative AI, chatbots, productivity, employee experience, tacit knowledge, knowledge transfer, employee retention, customer sentiment, management interventions, artificial intelligence 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.

Claims read (extract-v1) on 2026-09-25.

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