Generative AI is widely adopted by Korean workers and cuts reported working time by nearly 4%, yet measured output remains unchanged. Workers largely use the time saved for on-the-job leisure, suggesting standard productivity statistics may miss GenAI's welfare effects.

Main Finding

Generative AI (GenAI) is widely adopted in Korea’s workforce and reduces reported working time, but those time savings do not translate into measured output gains. Instead, workers largely capture efficiency gains as increased on-the-job leisure and changes in task composition (toward more/less fulfilling work). Standard productivity statistics therefore understate GenAI’s welfare impact in the early adoption phase.

Key Points

• Adoption and intensive use
  • 63.5% of surveyed Korean workers reported ever using GenAI; 51.8% reported GenAI use for work; 37.4% used GenAI in the prior week.
  • Adoption is concentrated among younger, higher-educated, and higher-income workers and in cognitive/professional occupations. Adoption correlates with an AI Exposure Index.
• Time savings
  • Among users, average working time fell by 3.8%; at the population level (including non-users) the reduction is ~1.4%.
  • Distribution: a mass near zero savings, a left tail of “super-savers” (>20% reductions), and a small right tail reporting time increases (learning/coordination costs).
  • Time savings are largest for information-processing tasks (coding, data analysis, document drafting). Across 156 tasks, 90% show positive time savings; mean task-level reduction ≈1.9%. Top tasks: problem-solving/data analysis (~11.8%), educational materials development (~9.8%).
  • Less-experienced workers report larger time savings than more-experienced workers.
• Output vs. time (the disconnect)
  • The weighted correlation between reported time savings and reported output changes is essentially zero (0.008).
  • Regressions show no statistically significant association between percent time saved and percent change in output (time-saved coefficient ≈ 0.000, SE ≈ 0.162).
  • 36.1% of users report output declines; many cite unfamiliarity with the tools (learning costs).
• Welfare channels
  • Workers capture value via on-the-job leisure: users report a ~1.3 percentage-point increase in the share of time spent on on-the-job leisure.
  • Task composition matters for welfare: substituting drudgery with more fulfilling tasks can raise welfare even without output gains; if AI automates fulfilling tasks, welfare gains may be muted.
  • Reported job satisfaction rises with time savings even when output is flat, but aggregate welfare effects are heterogeneous across workers.
• Interpretation
  • Early GenAI adoption yields latent efficiency gains that are visible as reduced hours and altered task mixes but not (yet) as measured productivity growth.
  • Organizational and incentive frictions likely prevent time savings from being converted into higher measured output.

Data & Methods

• Survey
  • Nationally representative online survey of 5,512 employed Korean individuals aged 15–64, fielded May 19–June 17, 2025 (Korea Research panel).
  • Stratified sampling by occupation (9 major groups, 53 medium-level categories), age (5 groups), and gender; square-root proportional allocation to oversample smaller occupations. Post-stratification weights (design weight, non-response adjustment, raking) used throughout.
  • Reported sampling error ±1.32 percentage points at 95% confidence.
• Measurement strategy
  • Bottom-up, task-level approach: respondents reported actual weekly working hours (excluding breaks/idle time), selected primary tasks (task list tailored by occupation), and reported task-level changes in weekly hours attributable to GenAI.
  • Time savings measured as reported change in hours relative to actual work hours.
  • Output measured via a self-index: respondents set pre-GenAI output = 100 and reported current output (numeric scale), enabling % changes in output independent of hours.
  • Fulfilling tasks: each reported task was rated for “personal fulfillment/sense of achievement”; constructed worker-level fulfilling-work shares.
• Estimation
  • Weighted descriptive statistics and regressions using survey weights; main regression for users: Yi = α + βXi + occupation/industry/region fixed effects + robust SEs.
  • Adoption analyzed via weighted logistic regressions and OLS for usage intensity. Time-output analyses restricted to users; task-level regressions include task fixed effects in some specifications.

Implications for AI Economics

• Measurement implications
  • Conventional aggregate productivity statistics (output per hour) may understate GenAI’s welfare effects because gains are frequently realized as reduced hours and non-pecuniary benefits (on-the-job leisure, task satisfaction) rather than immediate output growth.
  • Survey-based, task-level, and non-pecuniary measures are necessary complements to administrative/aggregate data to capture early-phase AI impacts.
• Organizational and policy implications
  • Realizing measured productivity gains likely requires organizational changes: incentive realignment (from fixed output quotas to output-expansion incentives), process redesign, and managerial adoption that channel time savings into higher output.
  • Training and onboarding support could reduce the learning/coordination frictions that currently generate output declines for some users.
• Distributional implications
  • Benefits (time savings and adoption) are concentrated among younger, more educated, and cognitive workers—implying distributional consequences across skill groups and occupations. Policy should consider retraining and access to tools for lagging groups.
• Welfare and task composition
  • AI’s welfare effects operate through both hours and task composition. Policies and firm-level decisions that preserve or expand opportunity for fulfilling tasks can amplify welfare gains even if GDP statistics remain unchanged.
• Research directions
  • Longitudinal and administrative data linkage are needed to track whether time savings convert into output gains as workers and firms adjust.
  • Better causal identification of the mechanisms (learning costs, incentive stickiness, task reassignment) would inform policies to accelerate productivity realization.
• Limitations to keep in mind
  • Self-reported measures (hours, output index, task fulfillment) may contain reporting bias.
  • Cross-sectional survey reflects early/adoption-phase patterns; dynamics may change as experience accumulates and organizations adapt.