Perplexity’s autonomous agent completes matched knowledge tasks in 36 minutes versus 269 with conversational search, cutting estimated time by ~87% and cost by ~94% while reducing per-query dissatisfaction by 55%. Autonomy not only speeds work and raises quality but also shifts user effort toward verification and higher-order tasks and unlocks cross-occupational, composite activities absent in search usage.

Main Finding

Autonomous AI agents (Perplexity Computer) materially reshape knowledge work relative to conversational assistants (Perplexity Search) by (1) performing far more machine-executed work per session, (2) reducing task completion time and estimated cost dramatically, (3) improving per-query satisfaction, and (4) expanding the horizontal and vertical scope of tasks users attempt. These effects are consistent with a simple task-cost framework where agents have higher fixed delegation/verification costs but much lower marginal execution costs per step.

Key Points

• Autonomy gap (empirical): In 10,000 matched session pairs (near-identical initial queries, cosine similarity > 0.99), Computer performs on average 26 minutes of autonomous planning/execution per session versus 33 seconds for Search — roughly a 48× increase in machine work.
• Quality: Per-query medium-to-high dissatisfaction rates are 1.3% on Computer vs 2.9% on Search (≈55% lower dissatisfaction on Computer).
• Efficiency: On matched tasks, average human completion time falls from 269 minutes (Search + human) to 36 minutes (Computer + human) — an 87% reduction in time and a 94% reduction in estimated cost. A human using Search alone would need to complete manual steps in under ~20 minutes to match Computer’s cost.
• Adoption & use cases: Computer grew rapidly (cumulative queries = 84× first-week total over Feb 27–May 27, 2026). In a random sample of 100,000 classified queries, top categories were Research & Analysis (25.8%) and Document & Asset Creation (18.6%); structured artifacts (documents, websites, codebases, spreadsheets) account for ~1/3 of outputs.
• Scope expansion — horizontal: In a sample of 8,000 users across 8 occupation clusters, Computer queries cross users’ primary occupations more often than their Search queries, with an average gap ≈ 9 percentage points (holds across clusters).
• Scope expansion — vertical / complexity:
  • Computer queries are more cognitively complex: 71% are abstract non-routine vs 53% for Search; higher-order Bloom cognition 76% vs 55%; Create-level work 50% vs 26%.
  • Broader expertise: average distinct O*NET Knowledge domains per query 2.40 (Computer) vs 1.74 (Search), +38%; Computer nearly 3× more likely to require 3+ domains (51% vs 17%).
  • Task composition: Computer queries engage more work-activity elements per query (e.g., Generalized Work Activities 2.95 vs 2.24, +32%; Intermediate Work Activities 4.01 vs 2.87, +40%; Detailed Work Activities 3.64 vs 2.29, +59%; Task Statements 3.81 vs 2.38, +60%).
  • Unlocking new actions: 23% of Computer queries include at least one Task Statement not appearing in the same users’ Search queries (smaller shares at coarser grains).
• Mechanism (conceptual): The paper models tasks as requiring s steps; agents have higher fixed per-task cost (fAgent > fConversational) but lower marginal cost per step (mAgent < mConversational). There exists a threshold s = (fAgent − fConversational)/(mConversational − mAgent); for tasks with s > s agents are preferred. Adding agent access therefore weakly expands the set of individually affordable tasks, raises total realized value, and (when budget binds) raises surplus and value-to-cost ratios.

Data & Methods

• Data source & timeframe: Production logs from Perplexity’s Search and Computer products, study window Feb 27–May 27, 2026.
• Product mapping:
  • Search = conversational answer engine (2022 baseline).
  • Comet Assistant = browser-integrated agent (2025; used for background framing).
  • Computer = general-purpose agent orchestrator (2026; primary agent studied).
• Empirical designs:
  • Matched-session natural experiments: 10,000 session pairs with near-identical initial queries to control for user/task heterogeneity when comparing Search vs Computer.
  • Query classification samples: 100,000 randomly sampled queries for use-case distribution; 1,000 matched multi-turn sessions for follow-up query classification; 10,000 queries from 5,000 dual-product users for cognitive/occupational mapping; 8,000 users across 8 occupation clusters for cross-occupation analysis.
  • Outcome measures: autonomous machine-runtime per session, next-turn dissatisfaction (user signal) as quality proxy, task completion time (observed/estimated), estimated cost reductions, O*NET mappings for task complexity, breadth, and task-activity counts.
• Robustness & validation:
  • Breakeven and sensitivity analyses around human-time estimates.
  • Cross-validation using an independent LLM-driven procedure.
  • User interviews to corroborate mechanisms (delegation, verification, task decomposition).
• Conceptual model:
  • Individual-level knapsack/selection model: users choose tasks subject to a resource budget B, paying per-task fixed cost + marginal per-step cost under chosen mode; model yields monotone predictions about task selection and surplus when agents are added.

Implications for AI Economics

• Micro-level productivity: Autonomous agents can convert many multi-step, higher-value tasks from costly human-executed sequences into cheaper delegated executions, producing large time- and cost-savings and improved per-query satisfaction in practice.
• Task reallocation and recomposition: Agents encourage bundling of interdependent subtasks into single delegated queries and enable non-specialists to attempt tasks that previously required specialist coordination — lowering coordination frictions and expanding within-worker scope of work.
• Occupational and organizational effects: By making it cheaper to perform multi-step, cross-domain tasks, agents may compress some task boundaries across occupations (horizontal exposure) and raise the average complexity of tasks a single worker performs (vertical exposure). This can alter division of labor within firms, reduce some coordination/transaction costs, and shift demand toward verification/supervision skills.
• Welfare and surplus: In a partial-equilibrium sense, agent access expands the affordable task frontier and realized value; when budgets bind, aggregate surplus and value-to-cost ratios rise. Distributional details (who captures surplus, impacts on wages, task displacement vs reinstatement) depend on firm-level adoption, complementarities, and labor supply adjustments.
• Policy and research priorities:
  • Monitor verification/oversight burdens: higher fixed delegation/verification costs remain important and may concentrate new kinds of work (review, compliance, quality control).
  • Measure downstream bottlenecks: human bottlenecks (review time, legal/compliance constraints) could limit how much agent-generated activity is realized in production.
  • Broader generalizability: results come from a single platform and user base; replication across domains, firms, and agent designs is needed.
  • Long-run labor market effects: research should trace dynamic re-skilling, wage adjustments, and occupational entry/exit as agents shift task composition.
• Limitations noted by authors: partial-equilibrium setting, platform-specific sample, measurement assumptions (task value realized only on full completion), and potential selection in users who adopt Computer.

Overall, the paper provides field evidence that autonomous agents (as implemented in Perplexity Computer) materially change the economics of knowledge work by lowering marginal execution costs, increasing realized value and surplus in constrained settings, improving quality, and expanding the scope and compositional complexity of tasks users attempt.