Deep AI use among S&P 500 firms surged from about 5% in 2022 to 11% in 2025, driven overwhelmingly by technology companies that account for two-thirds of deep adopters; adopters show a J‑shaped relationship with profitability but no clear change in capital spending or standard productivity measures.

Main Finding

In 2025, 21% of S&P 500 firms reported enterprise-level AI use in their 10‑K filings: 11% had AI deeply integrated into business processes (score 5), and 10% used AI in production/delivery (score 4). Adoption more than quadrupled since 2022 (≈5% then), is highly concentrated in the technology sector (≈67% of firms scoring 4–5 and a ~62% technology‑sector adoption rate), and is associated with a J‑curve in profitability (profitability rises only at the deep‑integration stage). There is no robust association between AI adoption and capex or productivity (revenue per employee). Among technology firms, higher adoption correlates with larger employment and higher Tobin’s q.

Key Points

• Headline adoption (S&P 500, 2016–2025): 21% scored 4–5 in 2025; 11% scored 5 (deep integration).
• Growth: AI adoption among S&P 500 firms more than quadrupled from ~5% in 2022 to 21% in 2025.
• Sector concentration: Technology sector accounts for two‑thirds of advanced enterprise adoption; only ~5% of tech firms had no AI mention in 2025.
• Financial associations:
  • J‑curve in net profit margin: early adoption not clearly profitable; profits rise when AI is deeply embedded.
  • No significant relationship between AI adoption and capex-to-revenue.
  • No detectable productivity gains as measured by revenue per employee.
  • In the tech sector, higher Tobin’s q and larger firm size (headcount) are associated with more advanced adoption.
• Measurement innovation: a reproducible rubric (1–5) applied to AI‑relevant paragraphs from 10‑Ks, classified with GPT‑5‑mini and manually validated.
• Examples: Meta = 5 (AI core to strategy); FedEx = 4 (production deployments); Fiserv = 3 (specific integrations); Best Buy = 2 (capacity building); Everest = 1 (regulatory mention only).

Data & Methods

• Sample: Universe of S&P 500 firms (510 unique firms due to index churn), 2016–2025, ~4.5k firm‑year observations.
• Core data sources: SEC EDGAR 10‑K filings (text), Compustat (firm financials, headcount, GICS codes), contextual Census Bureau stats.
• Two‑step AI adoption measure:
• Keyword filter: extract paragraphs from 10‑Ks containing an AI keyword list (drawn from Acemoglu et al. 2022 taxonomy, NeurIPS keywords, Gao & Wang 2024). This reduces input size and focuses on AI‑relevant disclosures.
• Rubric classification: an ordinal rubric (1–5) describing stages from no mention (1) to deep integration (5). The AI‑filtered paragraphs plus the rubric were fed to GPT‑5‑mini with a constrained prompt ("respond with only the score"), then outputs were manually validated and the rubric/prompt refined.
• Econometric approach: panel regressions associating AI adoption scores with financial outcomes (net profit margin, capex/revenue, revenue per employee, Tobin’s q), using log transforms for skewed variables (headcount, Tobin’s q). Authors emphasize descriptive associations and do not claim causal identification.
• Robustness/notes:
  • Manual reclassification for ambiguous GICS cases (e.g., Amazon, Tesla reclassified as tech).
  • Validation suggests model scores align with expectations (e.g., leading AI firms scored 5).
  • Limitations acknowledged: reliance on disclosures (possible signaling bias), LLM classification limitations, and non‑causal design.

Implications for AI Economics

• Diffusion dynamics and concentration
  • AI adoption is currently concentrated in large tech firms; broader diffusion is underway but much slower outside tech. This suggests potential increasing returns to scale and a role for firm capabilities (data, compute, organizational practices) in adoption decisions.
• J‑curve and organizational complementarities
  • The observed profitability J‑curve supports theories that AI requires organizational change and complementary investments (management, re‑skilling) and may impose short‑run adjustment costs before net gains materialize. Measurement of these complementarities should be central to future empirical work.
• Productivity measurement and timing
  • Absence of detectable productivity gains (revenue per employee) implies benefits may accrue via margins, pricing, or product mix rather than immediate labor productivity, or benefits may materialize with longer lags. Researchers should use richer productivity measures (task‑level, output quality, process metrics) and allow longer horizons.
• Financing, market expectations, and selection
  • The link between Tobin’s q and adoption in tech suggests capital market expectations and firm valuation matter for adoption. Firm size and access to finance likely affect ability to bear fixed costs of scaling AI (training, data, compute).
• Policy and risk considerations
  • Because scaling economics and systemic/network risks slow adoption, policy actions that reduce adoption frictions (support for data infrastructure, workforce reskilling, standards for model assurance) could accelerate useful diffusion while also needing measures to mitigate systemic AI risks (testing, certification, supply‑chain safeguards).
• Methodological contribution & future research
  • The paper contributes a replicable 10‑K disclosure–based adoption metric using an LLM+rubric pipeline; this enables broad, repeatable monitoring but carries disclosure/shaping biases. Future work should: (1) triangulate disclosure‑based measures with usage logs, procurement, or survey data; (2) pursue causal designs (instrumental variables, difference‑in‑differences around shocks to model availability or policy); (3) study within‑firm reallocation of tasks, wages, and employment; and (4) investigate cross‑firm spillovers and network/systemic risk propagation.
• Cautions for interpretation
  • Findings are descriptive and subject to disclosure bias (firms may over/under‑report AI use), LLM classification error, and limited timeframe (major step change after late‑2022). Claims about productivity, labor impacts, or macro effects require further causal and longer‑run study.