ChatGPT Enterprise adoption has surged: aggregate output tokens rose about sevenfold between June 2025 and March 2026, driven by both new firm sign-ups and deeper use within existing adopters; uptake is concentrated in larger, R&D- and SG&A-intensive firms, while active use is widespread across job functions and tasks — particularly among early-career staff.

Main Finding

Using de-identified telemetry from ChatGPT Enterprise (Jan 2024–Mar 2026) linked to job-title metadata and (for a subsample) Compustat, the authors show that enterprise generative-AI adoption is (a) rapidly expanding both via new adopters and deeper use within existing adopters, (b) concentrated initially in larger, more valuable, and more R&D-/SG&A‑intensive firms, and (c) deployed broadly within adopters across job functions and tasks but heterogeneously in intensity (notably higher use by early-career workers). ChatGPT Enterprise use covers a wide set of knowledge-work tasks (writing, synthesis, technical work, analysis, legal/finance, etc.), consistent with generative AI behaving like a general‑purpose technology for knowledge work.

Key Points

• Four stylized facts:
• Aggregate usage growth: enterprise output tokens rose ~7× from June 2025 to Mar 2026; within a fixed cohort (firms adopting Jan 2024–Jun 2025) token output rose ~4× over the same interval. Use accelerated further in early 2026 across cohorts.
• Adopter profile: among U.S. public firms, adopters are substantially larger (median revenue and assets several times those of non‑adopters), have higher market valuations, and spend more on R&D and SG&A.
• Within‑firm distribution: active use spans job functions and seniority, but intensity varies — marketing/communications and early‑career employees show especially high message volumes; executives use it less intensively.
• Task breadth: message‑level classification (available from Oct 30, 2025) shows use across many tasks — writing, communication, information synthesis, research, planning, data analysis, legal/regulatory work, finance, and more.
• Sample scale: worker‑characteristics sample at 6‑month horizon ≈ 1,764 organizations and ~17.45M messages; task‑classification subsample ≈ 973 organizations and ~8.70M classified messages.
• Public‑company linkage: usage‑matched Compustat panel comprises 521 ticker‑year observations for 417 U.S. tickers (509 observations covering 410 tickers with positive annual message volume); non‑adopter comparison group contains ~11,784 public tickers.
• Privacy & measurement: analyses use de‑identified telemetry; message content classified automatically; no manual review of individual customer messages. Job‑title coverage is incomplete inside firms; study focuses on centrally administered ChatGPT Enterprise workspaces (excludes consumer accounts and API use).

Data & Methods

• Primary data: organization‑week panel of ChatGPT Enterprise adoption and usage (organization ID, adoption date, weekly messages, active users, output tokens). Weeks indexed relative to each org’s adoption date; zero‑activity weeks are retained.
• Worker metadata: administrative job‑title strings normalized and mapped to broad job‑title classes, seniority, and manager status. Analyses of heterogeneous use measured at 26 weeks (6 months) after adoption.
• Task classification: automated message‑level classifier (taxonomy described in paper Appendix) applied to messages beginning Oct 30, 2025; used to compute task mixes by job class, seniority, and industry.
• Public‑company linkage: account→ticker mapping produced with a curated + LLM‑assisted crosswalk; ChatGPT Enterprise weekly usage aggregated to Compustat fiscal years; usage intensity metrics include messages per employee, tokens per employee, and weekly active users per employee.
• Identification & limits: descriptive, not causal. Important caveats: (i) only enterprise workspace activity observed (other AI use unobserved), (ii) incomplete job‑title coverage within organizations, and (iii) some non‑adopters may use other AI products (attenuating cross‑group contrasts).

Implications for AI Economics

• Evidence of a general‑purpose technology: the wide task mix and cross‑functional uptake support models that treat generative AI as a general‑purpose technology for knowledge work, with many potential complementarities across organizational activities.
• Organizational complements matter: early adopters are firms with greater scale and prior intangible/organizational investment (R&D, SG&A). This is consistent with theory that realizing AI’s returns requires complementary investments and organizational change — adoption alone is not sufficient for value realization.
• Heterogeneous worker effects and division of labor: higher intensity among early‑career and certain functional groups implies distributional effects within firms (task reallocation, shifts toward supervising/curating AI output). Productivity and labor‑market impacts will likely vary by task, seniority, and managerial structure.
• Diffusion and dynamic learning: substantial within‑firm growth after adoption and continued acceleration suggest ongoing experimentation and learning. Long‑run productivity gains depend on whether dispersed individual use is consolidated into firm‑level practices and capabilities.
• Measurement and policy: telemetry provides granular, real‑time evidence on adoption and task use, but policy and research should account for unobserved AI use outside enterprise workspaces and for the descriptive (non‑causal) nature of such telemetry studies. Targeted policies (training, evaluation standards, managerial incentives) may be important to ensure broad benefits and limit harms (quality control, equity).
• Open questions for future AI‑economics work: causal links from enterprise AI use to productivity, employment composition, wages, and firm performance; the role of complementary investments (training, process redesign); long‑run adoption diffusion across firm sizes and industries; and welfare/distributional impacts across worker cohorts.

(Working paper; results subject to change.)