Harvard Undergraduate Survey on Generative AI
Open accessAbstract
How has generative AI impacted the experiences of college students? We study the influence of AI on the study habits, class choices, and career prospects of Harvard undergraduates (n=326), finding that almost 90% of students use generative AI. For roughly 25% of these students, AI has begun to substitute for attending office hours and completing required readings. Half of students are concerned that AI will negatively impact their job prospects, and over half of students wish that Harvard had more classes on the future impacts of AI. We also investigate students' outlook on the broader social implications of AI, finding that half of students are worried that AI will increase economic inequality, and 40% believe that extinction risk from AI should be treated as a global priority with the same urgency as pandemics and nuclear war. Around half of students who have taken a class on AI expect AI to exceed human capabilities on almost all tasks within 30 years. We make some recommendations to the Harvard community in light of these results.
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 near-exclusive use of ChatGPT is consistent with surveys of adoption among college students.
“The near-exclusive use of ChatGPT is consistent with surveys of adoption among college students (Hirabayashi et al., 2024; Stöhr et al., 2024; Contractor and Reyes, 2025).”
From Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Hirabayashi et al., 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.
Cites
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.12712 · Cited by 1,526 · cited 1× · see citing works
“5 [2]).”
GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models
Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.10130 · Cited by 545 · cited 1× · see citing works
“[5] If this trend of AI progress continues, generative AI will also have a large impact on the experience of students more broadly.”
BackgroundThousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
Grace, K., Sandkühler, J. F., Stewart, H., Weinstein-Raun, B., Thomas, S., Stein-Perlman, Z., Salvatier, J., Brauner, J., & Korzekwa, R. C. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.19087 · Cited by 126 · cited 1× · see citing works
“1 A recent survey of thousands of AI experts estimated that there is a 50% chance of AI outperforming humans in every possible task by 2047 [7].”
BackgroundThe Potential Influence of AI on Population Mental Health
Ettman, C. K., & Galea, S. (2023) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/49936 · Cited by 48 · cited 1× · see citing works
“AI may increase mental health problems by introducing uncertainty around career options and challenging the notion of human exceptionalism [6].”
BackgroundEvaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Tasks
Kinniment, M., Sato, L. J. K., Du, H., Goodrich, B., Hasin, M., Chan, L., Miles, L. H., Lin, T. R., Wijk, H., Burget, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.11671 · Cited by 15 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Today, the most advanced chatbots powered by GPT-4 and Claude 3 can generate stunning images in any art style, perform basic autonomous tasks like browsing the web [8], and consistently outperform most humans on standardized tests.”
BackgroundThousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
Grace, K., Stewart, H., Sandkühler, J. F., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02843 · cited 1×
“1 A recent survey of thousands of AI experts estimated that there is a 50% chance of AI outperforming humans in every possible task by 2047 [7].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Faraon, M., Rönkkö, K., Milrad, M., & Tsui, E. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13492-x · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Falling Behind and Getting Ahead: Student Use of Generative AI in Education
Kuzminov, Y. I., Kruchinskaia, E. V., Gruzdev, I., & Naumov, A. (2025) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2025-34-6-9-35 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Jongkind, R., Bikker, Y., Meinema, J., & Broens, T. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1658415 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Marshall, J. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01392-2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Mak, M. H. C., & Walasek, L. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100507 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI
Contractor, Z., & Reyes, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08849
Generative AI in Management Education
Drahan, A., Kmeť, P., & Krajčík, M. (2026) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-24048-4_14
- Authors
- Hirabayashi, S., Jain, R., Jurković, N., & Wu, G.
- ORCID
- Jain, Rishab
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.00833
- OpenAlex
- W4399399642
- Semantic Scholar
- e595382f8c5375b24dc94ba3d539774c1ec6f1f1
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, university students, study habits, office hours, required reading, career prospects, AI and employment, artificial intelligence in education, economic inequality, AI capabilities, student attitudes toward AI
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
