Benefits
- Benefit
-
Cut time on writing tasks by 40% and raised graded quality by 18%
Awaiting review
- Outcome identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category
-
Reduced Task Time
Awaiting review
- Status
-
Reported benefit
Awaiting review
- Beneficiary groups
-
People.
Awaiting review
- Beneficiaries
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reach
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Distribution and access
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Duration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Expected?
-
Yes
Awaiting review
- Costs and harms
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
AI system
- System
-
ChatGPT
Awaiting review
- Model
-
This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Release
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Provider
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Role
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Configuration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Inputs and outputs
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Autonomy
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Workflow
-
Professionals wrote short, incentivized documents typical of their occupations. Half received ChatGPT for the second task after writing the first without it.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
Access to ChatGPT was randomly assigned for the second task, so the change in time and quality isolates the effect of the tool.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
Access to ChatGPT was randomly assigned for the second task, so the change in time and quality isolates the effect of the tool.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Randomized. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Study design
-
Randomized. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Measurement
-
Time on task and blinded grades from evaluators in the same occupations. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Setting and sample
-
453 college-educated professionals in an online experiment. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Measures
-
Time taken and output quality. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Comparison
-
Participants without ChatGPT. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Results
-
Time down 40%, quality up 18%. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Additional value from AI
-
40% faster with 18% higher quality. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Limitations
-
Short designed tasks completed online; effects on workplace output not measured. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
Money
- Kind of value
-
The kind of monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Amount
-
The monetary value is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Currency and prices
-
The currency and price basis are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Period and unit
-
The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Realization
-
Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Recipients and payers
-
The recipients and payers are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Gross or net
-
Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Included costs
-
The costs included in the estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Comparison
-
The financial comparison is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Method
-
The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Return and payback
-
The return on investment or payback period is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
People and places
- Participants
-
Developer:
OpenAI. Operator: MIT researchers (Noy and Zhang), in an online experiment.Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit: Online experiment with professionals (the sources do not name the countries). Developer:
United States. Operator: United States.Awaiting review
- Ownership and control
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Dependencies
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Cross-border connections
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Geopolitical implications
-
The geopolitical implications are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
The writing task must be short and self-contained. Writers must review and edit the model's draft.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
1 follow-up entry. Benefit recurred: 1.
Awaiting review
- Later findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Availability
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Institutional decision
-
A relevant institutional decision has not been established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Grounds
-
The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Action and result
-
The result of an institutional decision is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Success criterion
-
The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Evidence
- Source numbers
-
AIBD-0666-source-0001–0002
Awaiting review
- Citations
-
Numbered references below.
Awaiting review
- Language
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Source relationships
-
Independent
Awaiting review
- Original evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Access and versions
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Supported findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and one independent preprint. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
People.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
People: 1.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
People: Participants with ChatGPT finished writing tasks in 40% less time, with quality 18% higher.
Awaiting review
- Observed or intended
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Rubric
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Assessor and date
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Alternative assessments
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Fill
-
Independently studied
Awaiting review
Entry details
- Kind
-
The case describes an evaluation or a study. A preregistered randomized experiment. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
Both cases concern a professional who uses a generative AI chatbot to draft written work, where the writer is held responsible for false content that the tool produces.
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026; a second reading confirmed that the incident concerns the same kind of system and stakeholder.
Sources: incidentdatabase.ai
- Field
-
Professional writing.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
OpenAI built ChatGPT as a general-purpose chatbot. The experiment tested its use for professional writing.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Source published: 14 July 2023. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was tested in a laboratory. An online experiment with designed tasks. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: 9f76581328b9…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.
References
- Other identifiers
-
AI Incident Database: 764.
Awaiting review
- Category mappings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Citable summary
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Revisions
-
2 revisions. Latest: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
Sources
-
Peer-reviewed study Independent author
Noy S, Zhang W. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science. 2023;381(6654):187-192. doi:10.1126/science.adh2586.
Our results show that ChatGPT substantially raised productivity: The average time taken decreased by 40% and output quality rose by 18%.
-
Preprint Independent author
Inequality between workers decreases, as ChatGPT compresses the productivity distribution by benefiting low-ability workers more.