The link to their referenced study doesn't seem to work?

This is confusing.. it's directly saying AI is improving employee productivity, but that's not leading to more business profit... how does that happen?

> AI is improving employee productivity, but that's not leading to more business profit... how does that happen?

One trivial way is that the increase of productivity is less than the added cost of the tools. Which suggests that (either due to their own pricing, or just mis-judgement) the AI companies are mis-pricing their tools. If the tool adds $5000 in productivity, it should be priced at $4999, eventually -- the AI companies have every motivation to capture nearly all of the value, but they need to leave something, even if just a penny, for the purchasing company to motivate adoption. If they're pricing at $5001, there's no motivation to use the tool at all; but of course at $4998 they're leaving money on the table. There's no stable equilibrium here where the purchasing companies end up with a /significant/ increase in (productivity - cost of that productivity), of course.

This study was led by a PI in the MIT Media Lab who studies cameras and their impact on society.

There's a reason it has a catchy headline, there's a reason you needed to fill in an email form to get access to the study, and there's a reason why the 2nd author has an agentic AI startup.

I thought it was a low quality article with no data or in detail methods. MIT needs to do better. This is the second article of this type in the last few months that caught headlines.

Maybe they’re measuring productivity by flawed metrics. One could write 10x as much code, but that doesnt mean that will equate to more profit

Possible conclusion: most of the work that employees do has no direct impact on earnings.