Source note · Independent commentary
When the tool learns from the experts and hands it to the novices
It is one of the few large field studies of a generative assistant in real work, and its most quoted result is also its most misread: the newcomers gained most, and the experts were the ones the tool was trained on.
Research reviewed
Generative AI at Work
- Authors
- Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, Lindsey Raymond
- Institution
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publication
- NBER Working Paper 31161; later published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Date
- 2023-04
- Type
- Working paper
A field study of a generative AI assistant rolled out to several thousand customer support agents. The tool raised issues resolved per hour, with the largest gains among newer and lower-skilled agents and small effects for the most experienced.
Read the original sourceEvidence
What the source supports
- In this setting, a generative AI assistant increased average productivity, measured as issues resolved per hour.
- The gains were concentrated among novice and lower-skilled agents. Experienced, high-skill agents saw minimal improvement.
- The authors interpret the tool as spreading the practices of more able workers to newer ones.
Boundary
What the source does not support
- That experienced workers in other fields will see the same pattern. The study covers one company and one kind of work.
- That AI assistance makes experience worthless. The tool learned from the experienced agents' own behavior.
- Any claim about job loss, wages, or long-term careers. The study measures task performance, not employment outcomes.
Interpretation
What Sougata is doing with it
Sougata uses this as context for why Episode 1 exists: in this setting the visible output gap between newer and more experienced workers narrowed quickly. That is the situation the Second Door Plan responds to. The paper does not evaluate the Second Door Plan, and nothing in it supports a claim that writing a lesson down and testing it produces any career outcome. The connection between the two is Sougata's reasoning, not the paper's finding.
This is an independent Voyagers Beyond source note. Voyagers Beyond is not affiliated with or endorsed by the authors, publishers, universities, organizations, or institutions referenced here unless explicitly stated otherwise. The summary and analysis are written independently; nothing from the work is reproduced.
Why it matters here