Evidence (7560 claims)
Search and filter individual claims pulled from the papers. Looking for a specific finding ("what's the effect on wages?"), you're in the right place. Want to compare whole outcome categories against each other instead? Use the Evidence Explorer.
The board below groups claims two ways: by broad theme (nine paper-level topics) and by outcome category (the 34 claim-level outcomes that the Explorer and Syntheses also use).
Browse by theme
Nine broad, paper-level topics. Click one to filter the claims below.
Adoption
9875 claims
Filter claims →
Productivity
8807 claims
Filter claims →
Governance
7870 claims
Filter claims →
Human-AI Collaboration
7560 claims
Filtered →
Org Design
4892 claims
Filter claims →
Innovation
4781 claims
Filter claims →
Labor Markets
4004 claims
Filter claims →
Skills & Training
3308 claims
Filter claims →
Inequality
2332 claims
Filter claims →
Claims by outcome category
Counts by direction of finding. These are the same 34 outcome categories the Explorer compares and the Syntheses are written for. A linked row has a published synthesis.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 870 | 233 | 116 | 1066 | 2363 |
| Governance & Regulation | 976 | 451 | 218 | 133 | 1809 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 949 | 224 | 144 | 88 | 1416 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 764 | 287 | 141 | 122 | 1325 |
| Research Productivity | 501 | 152 | 74 | 362 | 1101 |
| Output Quality | 542 | 216 | 69 | 69 | 896 |
| Decision Quality | 387 | 198 | 94 | 54 | 740 |
| Firm Productivity | 513 | 67 | 101 | 27 | 714 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 249 | 303 | 73 | 36 | 667 |
| Market Structure | 190 | 192 | 134 | 27 | 548 |
| Task Allocation | 243 | 77 | 91 | 36 | 452 |
| Innovation Output | 291 | 33 | 55 | 20 | 401 |
| Skill Acquisition | 206 | 72 | 65 | 21 | 364 |
| Employment Level | 133 | 63 | 115 | 22 | 335 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 153 | 79 | 52 | 32 | 323 |
| Task Completion Time | 206 | 37 | 12 | 15 | 272 |
| Firm Revenue | 179 | 52 | 29 | 5 | 266 |
| Consumer Welfare | 130 | 76 | 47 | 13 | 266 |
| Inequality Measures | 48 | 137 | 51 | 6 | 242 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 101 | 81 | 25 | 13 | 220 |
| Error Rate | 84 | 110 | 11 | 5 | 210 |
| Wages & Compensation | 98 | 47 | 30 | 10 | 185 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 88 | 73 | 17 | 7 | 185 |
| Automation Exposure | 66 | 64 | 33 | 16 | 182 |
| Team Performance | 105 | 29 | 30 | 11 | 176 |
| Training Effectiveness | 109 | 22 | 14 | 21 | 168 |
| Developer Productivity | 114 | 21 | 14 | 8 | 158 |
| Job Displacement | 12 | 90 | 24 | 1 | 127 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 57 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 80 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 6 | 56 | 9 | 1 | 72 |
| Social Protection | 43 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 70 |
| Creative Output | 35 | 21 | 9 | 4 | 70 |
| Labor Share of Income | 18 | 21 | 17 | 1 | 57 |
| Worker Turnover | 15 | 16 | — | 4 | 35 |
| Industry | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
Human Ai Collab
Remove filter
AI deployment substantially lowers ratings for AI-eligible chats.
Randomized field experiment measuring customer ratings for AI-eligible chats; treated condition (AI + human oversight) produced substantially lower ratings relative to control (humans only).
AI deployment reduces average chat duration.
Randomized field experiment on Alibaba's Taobao platform: workers in treatment supervised an agentic AI resolving AI-eligible chats while handling AI-ineligible chats; control workers resolved all chats without AI. Effect observed on average chat duration in experiment data.
Rather than restoring stability, this cycle intensifies anxiety, undermines mastery, and erodes professional confidence.
Theoretical claim about psychological outcomes from the conceptual reskilling loop; paper provides argumentation but no empirical measurements.
Based on Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) theory and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, the paper conceptualizes an AI-induced reskilling loop in which ongoing technological change leads to skill erosion, continuous reskilling demands, cognitive and emotional depletion, and reinforced learning as a defensive response to perceived obsolescence.
Theoretical model/loop derived from applying JD-R and COR frameworks; no empirical test or sample reported in the paper.
The paper introduces the concept of 'reskilling fatigue' to explain the human consequences of persistent skill volatility among Established Knowledge Professionals (EKPs).
Conceptual/theoretical contribution presented by the authors; definition and argumentation rather than empirical validation.
Continuous reskilling is widely promoted as a solution to AI-driven disruption, but little attention has been paid to its cumulative psychological costs.
Argument from literature review/observation in the paper; no empirical measurement or sample reported in the paper.
Unless labour law evolves to address digitally mediated control and platform-based asymmetry, the gig economy risks normalising exploitative labour conditions under the guise of innovation and flexibility.
Predictive/theoretical claim based on the paper's synthesis of platform practices, legal gaps, and normative concerns; argued through comparative analysis and conceptual reasoning rather than quantitative forecasting.
The paper uses the concept of 'digital slavery' as a normative framework to describe labour conditions shaped by coercive algorithmic management, absence of bargaining power, and structural precarity.
Conceptual and normative framing within the paper, using the 'digital slavery' metaphor to interpret observed platform labour practices and their implications; theoretical argumentation rather than empirical measurement.
While several jurisdictions (UK, US, EU, India) have attempted to regulate gig work, most regulatory responses remain incomplete and fail to fully address platform accountability.
Comparative policy/regulatory analysis of the United Kingdom, United States, European Union and India assessing statutes, litigation and policy measures; qualitative assessment rather than statistical evaluation (no quantitative sample size reported).
Platform companies rely on contractual misclassification, corporate structuring, and the legal fiction of neutrality to separate control from liability.
Legal and corporate-structure analysis across jurisdictions, examining contracts, corporate forms and legal doctrines; based on comparative statutory and case-law review (no quantitative sample size reported).
The platform economy produces a deeply unequal labour structure marked by algorithmic control, economic dependency, surveillance, and lack of social protection.
Synthesis and critical analysis combining literature, policy review and comparative jurisdictional study to argue systemic effects on labour structure; primarily qualitative evidence and theoretical framing (no quantitative sample size reported).
Gig workers, though formally classified as independent contractors, are functionally subjected to pricing control, performance monitoring, automated penalties, and deactivation mechanisms that closely resemble managerial authority.
Descriptive/qualitative evidence in the paper: examples and analysis of platform design and management practices (algorithmic pricing, monitoring, penalties, deactivation); based on platform policy documents, case examples and comparative review (no quantitative sample size reported).
Digital labour platforms exercise employer-like control while avoiding employer-like legal responsibilities.
Argument and comparative legal analysis across jurisdictions (United Kingdom, United States, European Union, India) demonstrating platform practices and legal/regulatory responses; based on documentary/legal review and critical analysis (no quantitative sample size reported).
These characteristics are properties of the tasks themselves rather than limitations of current AI models.
Conceptual argument in the paper asserting task-inherent properties drive resistance to automation; supported by theory and argumentation, not by empirical model-comparison experiments.
The resistance of Metis tasks to automation is not due to computational intractability but to institutional, social, and normative entanglements.
Theoretical argument differentiating computational from institutional/social/normative causes; supported by citations and cross-disciplinary theory rather than empirical causal identification.
There exists a class of entirely digital tasks, called 'Metis AI', that resist reliable AI automation.
Conceptual identification and definition introduced by the authors; supported by theoretical grounding in social sciences, philosophy, and humanitarian practice rather than empirical trials or quantified samples.
That digital-vs-physical framing misses the most consequential boundary: the one within digital tasks.
Normative/theoretical argument presented in the paper contrasting existing framing with a proposed alternative; grounded in cross-disciplinary literature rather than empirical measurement.
Parsing through LLM-generated code can be tedious and time-consuming, potentially negating the productivity gains promised by AI-coding tools.
Motivation/background statement in the paper: a qualitative claim about the cost (time/effort) of reviewing LLM-generated code; presented as motivation rather than empirically quantified evidence in the excerpt.
Employees experience technostress, anxiety and micro-political negotiation around AI tools in everyday work.
Reported experiences from semistructured interviews with 28 managers/professionals across 12 organizations; thematic analysis highlighting technostress and anxiety as themes.
An analysis of a 21-instrument inventory identifies an incentive gradient where geopolitical and industrial pressures systematically reward surface-level behavioral proxies over deep structural verification.
Empirical/qualitative analysis of an inventory of 21 governance instruments compiled and analysed in the paper (n=21 instruments).
Behavioural assurance, even when carefully designed, is being asked to carry safety claims it cannot verify.
The paper's normative and conceptual argument synthesising governance requirements and the epistemic limits of behavioural testing.
Current assurance methodologies (primarily behavioural evaluations and red-teaming) are epistemically limited to observable model outputs and cannot verify latent representations or long-horizon agentic behaviours.
Conceptual/analytic argument and review of existing assurance methodologies presented in the paper.
Distinct readability issue patterns and limited effectiveness of prompt engineering reveal a latent technical debt in LLM-generated code that could affect long-term maintainability.
Interpretation/conclusion in paper combining empirical findings (distinct issue patterns and limited prompt impact) to argue for potential technical debt and maintainability risks; presented as a forward-looking implication rather than a quantified causal estimate.
LLM-generated code displays distinct readability issue patterns compared to human-written code.
Empirical analysis of readability subcomponents/features showing different patterns of readability issues between LLM-generated and human-written code (paper reports qualitative/quantitative distinctions in issue patterns).
Increased levels of AI assistance may degrade productivity, leading to potentially significant shortfalls under the model's identified conditions.
Model-based comparative-statics and steady-state analysis showing scenarios where marginal increases in AI assistance reduce expected task output; examples/parameter illustrations provided in the paper (theoretical, no empirical sample).
Introducing AI unreliability (errors/noise in AI outputs) in the model can also generate a productivity paradox: greater AI assistance may lower productivity.
Analytical/theoretical model incorporating AI unreliability; model derivations and examples demonstrating conditions under which unreliability leads to reduced productivity (no empirical data).
Incorporating endogeneity in skill development into the model can induce a productivity paradox where increased AI assistance reduces productivity.
Analytical/theoretical model of human-AI interaction with utility-maximizing human agents and endogenous skill development; steady-state and comparative-static analysis reported in the paper (no empirical sample).
Simulated users produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.
Temporal/interaction analysis in the replication showing differences in how simulators provide feedback across multi-turn interactions compared to humans.
Simulated users exhibit amplified position biases relative to human participants.
Behavioral comparison in the simulator replication showing stronger position biases in simulated responses than in human responses.
Simulated users discuss different topics compared to the human participants.
Analysis of conversation content in the simulator replication showing differences in topical distribution between simulators and humans.
Simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements.
Comparison in the replication study between simulator consistency and human self-consistency on individual-level judgments; reported large performance gap (simulators far below humans).
Amplified sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours may introduce deleterious long-term consequences.
Authors' interpretation and cautionary note based on observed behavioral amplification after fine-tuning; presented as potential long-term risk rather than an empirically measured long-term outcome.
In a controlled experiment across six industry configurations (72 tool invocations using Qwen3-32B), unconstrained tool parameters produced a 43% hallucination rate for domain identifiers.
Controlled experiment reported in the paper: six industry configurations, 72 tool invocations, model used: Qwen3-32B; reported unconstrained parameter condition resulted in 43% hallucination rate for domain identifiers.
In multi-agent configurations the semantic training gap produces a compounding failure mode termed 'semantic drift'.
Analytical description and demonstration in the paper describing multi-agent interactions and observed/argued compounding failures (conceptual demonstration; no numeric sample stated).
The semantic training gap causes operationally incorrect outputs even when model responses are linguistically precise.
Demonstrations and examples reported in the paper showing cases where model outputs are linguistically fluent but operationally incorrect; supported by the paper's analysis and experimental illustrations (no numeric sample provided for this general claim).
There exists a 'semantic training gap': a structural disconnect between how AI systems acquire domain vocabulary through training and how manufacturing operations define meaning through ontological relationships.
Paper provides a formalization and conceptual framing of the gap (theoretical description and argumentation within the manuscript).
LLM-based AI agents deployed in manufacturing demonstrate statistical fluency with domain terminology but lack grounded understanding of operational semantics.
Stated assertion in the paper describing observed behavior of deployed LLM agents; supported by conceptual analysis and examples/demonstrations reported in the paper (no numeric sample size given).
AI integration simultaneously increases labor concerns about skill obsolescence by 33%.
Reported as a survey/result in the paper; the study includes surveys of 800 marketers (self-reported concerns about skill obsolescence are likely derived from that survey sample).
Rising data velocity renders legacy systems obsolete—threatening approximately $3.4 trillion in global marketing spending.
Paper reports an estimate/claim about threatened global marketing spending tied to legacy systems becoming obsolete (derivation likely from the study's quantitative analysis or economic estimate described in the paper).
62% of teams suffer from "AI paralysis," unable to scale pilot initiatives beyond isolated implementations.
Reported as a finding in the paper's mixed-methods study (paper states AI adoption audits of 120 organizations and surveys of 800 marketers as part of the study).
Autonomous software-engineering agents remain unreliable in realistic development settings.
Assertion in abstract summarizing the observed current state; likely based on prior literature and/or authors' observations (no empirical sample size given in abstract).
Individuals low in trait self-efficacy experienced the steepest ownership erosion (i.e., AI-authorship reduced psychological ownership most for low self-efficacy participants).
Reported moderation analysis in the preregistered experiment showing trait self-efficacy moderated the authorship effect on psychological ownership; preregistered N = 470. (No numeric effect size reported in the abstract.)
Participants in the LLM condition reported lower perceived importance (d = 1.13).
Same preregistered experiment; reported effect size d = 1.13; preregistered N = 470.
Participants in the LLM condition reported lower commitment (d = 1.19).
Same preregistered experiment comparing self-authored vs LLM-authored goals; reported effect size d = 1.19; preregistered N = 470.
Participants in the LLM condition reported lower psychological ownership (d = 1.38).
Same preregistered experiment (between-subjects comparison of authorship); reported effect size d = 1.38; preregistered N = 470.
The gap is prompt-resistant across seven variants.
Experiments applying seven different prompt variants to the evaluated models on IMAVB showing that the representation-action mismatch and failure modes persist despite prompt changes.
The gap is modality-asymmetric (audio grounding underperforms vision).
Within IMAVB's 2x2 design (vision vs audio), comparative performance metrics indicate worse grounding/rejection behavior for audio-targeted conditions versus vision-targeted conditions across evaluated models.
Behaviorally, models fall into two failure modes: under-rejection, in which they answer misleading questions as if the false premise were true; and over-rejection, in which they reject more often but also reject standard questions, sacrificing ordinary comprehension accuracy.
Behavioral results on IMAVB showing distinct response patterns across tested models: some rarely reject misleading premises (under-rejection) while others reject too often including correct/standard questions (over-rejection), measured across the 500-clip benchmark.
Across eight open-source omnimodal LLMs and Gemini 3.1 Pro, we document a Representation-Action Gap: hidden states reliably encode premise–perception mismatches even when the same models almost never reject the false claim in their outputs.
Empirical evaluation on IMAVB across 9 models (8 open-source + Gemini 3.1 Pro); internal probing of hidden states showing mismatch signal and behavioral output analysis showing low rejection rates for false premises.
The paper identifies five fundamental architectural mismatches between conventional APIs and autonomous agent requirements: exact-identifier dependence, rendering-oriented responses, single-shot interaction assumptions, user-equivalent authorization, and opaque error semantics.
Conceptual analysis and problem-framing presented in the paper (qualitative identification of five mismatch categories).