The Augmentation Trap: AI Productivity and the Cost of Cognitive Offloading
Open accessAbstract
Experimental evidence suggests that AI tools raise worker productivity, but also that sustained offloading can erode expertise. This creates a tradeoff when expertise is a complement to AI. To explore the consequences of this tradeoff, we develop a dynamic model in which a decision-maker chooses the intensity of practice-displacing AI offloading for a worker over time, trading immediate productivity against the erosion of worker skill. We decompose the tool's productivity effect into two components, one independent of worker expertise and one that scales with it. The model produces three main results. First, a decision-maker who fully anticipates skill erosion still rationally adopts AI when front-loaded gains outweigh long-run skill costs, lowering long-run productivity. The decomposition sorts deployments into five regions by their long-run effect, separating beneficial from harmful adoption. Second, the tradeoff introduces the potential for misaligned incentives to harm workers. When managers are short-termist or worker skill has external value, AI use can leave the worker worse off than with no AI, the outcome we call the augmentation trap. Third, when AI substitutes strongly enough for expertise, offloading can generate permanent divergence, with high-skill workers realizing their potential and low-skill workers deskilling. Small differences in managerial incentives can determine which path a worker takes.
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?
Unmediated use of AI for reasoning tasks risks an augmentation trap where short-term productivity gains may hide a long-term decline in critical thinking skills.
“Whereas unmediated use for reasoning tasks risks an”
From The Double-Edged Sword of Automation: Impact of Generative AI Adoption on Student's Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education Considering Cognitive Offloading as a Mediator (2026) · cites this paper as Caosun, & Aral, 2026
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Acemoglu, D. and Pischke, J.-S. (1998). Why do firms train? Theory and evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1):79-119.
- Acemoglu, D. and Pischke, J.-S. (1999). The structure of wages and investment in general training. Journal of Political Economy, 107(3):539-572.
- Aral, S. and Weill, P. (2007). IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm performance: How resource allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organization Science, 18(5):763-780.
- Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organiza- tional transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4):23-48.
- Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., and Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2):889-942.
- Burton-Jones, A. and Straub, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 17(3):228-246.
- Ehsan, U., Passi, S., Saha, K., McNutt, T., Riedl, M. O., and Alcorn, S. (2026). From future of work to future of workers: Addressing asymptomatic AI harms for dignified human-AI interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21920. · arXiv
- Ganuthula, V. R. R. (2024). The paradox of augmentation: A theoretical model of AI-induced skill atrophy. SSRN Working Paper.
- Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., and Wyatt, J. C. (2012). Automation bias: A systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(1):121-127.
- Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., and Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3):525-557.
- Ju, H. and Aral, S. (2025a). Collaborating with AI agents: Field experiments on teamwork, productivity, and performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18238. · arXiv
- Ju, H. and Aral, S. (2025b). Personality pairing improves human-AI collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13979. · arXiv
- Lebovitz, S., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., and Levina, N. (2022). To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments: How professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis. Organization Science, 33(1):126-148.
- Lee, S., Sarkar, S., Tankelevitch, L., and Xu, A. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
- Noy, S. and Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187-192.
- Parasuraman, R. and Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2):230-253.
- Patra, P., Garg, P., and Picard, R. W. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08872. · arXiv
- Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., and Demirer, M. (2023). The impact of ai on developer productivity: Evidence from github copilot. arXiv preprint.
- Rock, D., Tambe, P., Impink, P., and Brynjolfsson, E. (2024). Engineering value: The returns to technological talent and investments in artificial intelligence. Strategic Management Journal. Forthcoming.
- Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R. W. (1999). Arrangements for information technology governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quarterly, 23(2):261-290.
- Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duvenaud, D., Askell, A., Bowman, S. R., et al. (2024). Towards understanding sycophancy in language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
- Shen, J. H. and Tamkin, A. (2026). How AI impacts skill formation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20245. · arXiv
- Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A., and Malone, T. W. (2024). When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 8:2293-2303.
- Authors
- Caosun, M., & Aral, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2604.03501
- OpenAlex
- W7151324708
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Impact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
- Keywords
- cognitive offloading, labor productivity, skill erosion, expertise, artificial intelligence adoption, deskilling, managerial incentives, short-termism, skill complementarity, dynamic model, employee welfare
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
