CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Simple Macroeconomics of AI

Acemoglu, Daron·2024
DOI 10.3386/w32487
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w32487

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • If an AI-exposure-adjusted labor share of 0.57 is assumed, following Acemoglu (2024), the implied potential productivity gain from genAI is 1.1%.

    “If we assume an AI-exposure-adjusted labor share of 0.57, following Acemoglu (2024), the implied potential productivity gain is 1.1%.”

    From The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Acemoglu (2024)

  • Our estimate of the potential aggregate productivity gain from genAI of 1.1% is slightly higher than the estimate of 0.7% found by Acemoglu (2024).

    “Our estimate of the potential aggregate productivity gain from genAI of 1.1% is slightly higher than the estimate of 0.7% found by Acemoglu (2024).”

    From The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Acemoglu (2024)

  • Acemoglu (2024) uses expert assessments to estimate a wage-weighted share of all tasks for which genAI can be adopted of 4.6%.

    “Acemoglu (2024) uses expert assessments to estimate a wage-weighted share of all tasks for which genAI can be adopted of 4.6%.”

    From The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Acemoglu (2024)

  • If we adjusted our estimate of labor cost savings from 33% down to the 27% from the experimental studies discussed in Acemoglu (2024), we would arrive at an aggregate productivity estimate of 0.9%.

    “If we adjusted our estimate of labor cost savings from 33% down to the 27% from the experimental studies discussed in Acemoglu (2024), we would arrive at an aggregate productivity estimate of 0.9%.”

    From The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Acemoglu (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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Acemoglu, D.
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2024-05
DOI
10.3386/w32487
Cited by
159
References
6

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