Shifting Work Patterns with Generative AI
Open accessAbstract
We present evidence from a field experiment across 66 firms and 7,137 knowledge workers. Workers were randomly selected to access a generative AI tool integrated into applications they already used at work for email, meetings, and writing. In the second half of the 6-month experiment, the 80% of treated workers who used this tool spent two fewer hours on email each week and reduced their time working outside of regular hours. Apart from these individual time savings, we do not detect shifts in the quantity or composition of workers' tasks resulting from individual-level AI provision.
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?
Dillon et al. (2025) document that firm effects are a primary driver of workers' take-up of a randomized offer for Microsoft Copilot.
“This finding aligns with Dillon et al. (2025), who document that firm effects are a primary driver of workers' take-up of a randomized offer for Microsoft Copilot.”
From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Dillon et al. (2025)
In §1, “Patterns of Copilot Adoption,” firm fixed effects explain more variation in treated workers’ Copilot usage than the measured individual work patterns do (18.4% versus 9.3%). The same section says the authors cannot estimate the causal effects of these factors, so the evidence supports firm effects as an important predictor of take-up, not as an established primary causal driver. Page numbers were not provided in the passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Acemoglu, Daron. 2025. "The simple macroeconomics of AI." Economic Policy, 40(121): 13-58.
- Blandin, Adam, Alexander Bick, and David Deming. 2024. "The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI." Available at SSRN 4965142.
- Bresnahan, Timothy F, Erik Brynjolfsson, and Lorin M Hitt. 2002. "Information technol- ogy, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence." The quarterly journal of economics, 117(1): 339-376.
- Brynjolfsson, Erik, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond. 2025. "Generative AI at work." The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
- Brynjolfsson, Erik, Daniel Rock, and Chad Syverson. 2021. "The productivity J-curve: How in- tangibles complement general purpose technologies." American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1): 333-372.
- Cui, Zheyuan, Mert Demirer, Sonia Jaffe, Leon Musolff, Sida Peng, and Tobias Salz. 2024. "The Effects of Generative AI on High Skilled Work: Evidence from Three Field Experiments with Software Developers." Available at SSRN 4945566.
- Duflo, Esther. 2001. "Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an unusual policy experiment." American economic review, 91(4): 795-813.
- Eloundou, Tyna, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2024. "GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs." Science, 384(6702): 1306-1308.
- Goodman-Bacon, Andrew. 2021. "Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing." Journal of econometrics, 225(2): 254-277.
- Humlum, Anders, and Emilie Vestergaard. 2025. "The unequal adoption of ChatGPT exac- erbates existing inequalities among workers." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(1): e2414972121.
- McElheran, Kristina, J Frank Li, Erik Brynjolfsson, Zachary Kroff, Emin Dinlersoz, Lucia Foster, and Nikolas Zolas. 2024. "AI adoption in America: Who, what, and where." Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 33(2): 375-415.
- Noy, Shakked, and Whitney Zhang. 2023. "Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence." Science, 381(6654): 187-192.
- Otis, Nicholas, Rowan P Clarke, Solene Delecourt, David Holtz, and Rembrand Koning. 2023. "The uneven impact of generative AI on entrepreneurial performance." Available at SSRN 4671369.
- Peng, Sida, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Peter Cihon, and Mert Demirer. 2023. "The impact of AI on developer productivity: Evidence from GitHub copilot." arXiv preprint:2302.06590. · arXiv
- Spatharioti, Sofia Eleni, David M Rothschild, Daniel G Goldstein, and Jake M Hofman. 2023. "Comparing traditional and LLM-based search for consumer choice: A randomized experi- ment." arXiv preprint:2307.03744. · arXiv
- Toner-Rodgers, Aidan. 2024. "Artificial intelligence, scientific discovery, and product innovation." arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17866. · arXiv
- Vaithilingam, Priyan, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. "Expectation vs. expe- rience: Evaluating the usability of code generation tools powered by large language models." Chi conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts, 1-7.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI
Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2025) · doi:10.3386/w33777 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dillon, E. W., Jaffe, S., Immorlica, N., & Stanton, C. T.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2504.11436
- OpenAlex
- W4414936520
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- generative AI, knowledge workers, work patterns, email use, time use, task composition, workplace AI 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
