Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
AI: Jobs, Power & Money
17MAR

One in three US workers now uses LLMs

3 min read
13:50UTC

LLM adoption among American workers rose from 30.1% to 38.3% in twelve months — faster than smartphones at the same penetration stage — but whether that adoption is replacing jobs or reshaping them remains genuinely contested.

← Back to Meta cuts 20% while Big Tech spends $650bnJump to analysis ↓
EconomicAssessed
Key takeaway

At the current adoption growth rate, LLM saturation among US knowledge workers is likely within two to three years.

LLM adoption among US workers rose from 30.1% in December 2024 to 38.3% by December 2025 — an 8.2 percentage-point increase in twelve months, according to Hartley et al. 1. For comparison, US smartphone penetration took roughly four years to traverse the equivalent band in the early 2010s.

The adoption figure alone does not settle the displacement debate. Oxford Economics found no evidence of AI replacing workers at scale . The NBER's Humlum and Vestergaard found task restructuring "without net changes in hours or earnings" 3. The "AI washing" research suggests many companies are citing AI for cuts driven by conventional cost pressure.

Block's experience tells a different story — its CFO cited a measurable productivity gain, then the company cut 40% of its workforce. Both accounts — augmentation in some firms, genuine replacement in others — can coexist. That is precisely what the aggregate data obscures.

The skills gap makes the stakes plain. The workers being hired are not the workers being displaced. If the Hartley et al. adoption curve continues, more than half of US workers will use LLMs by late 2027. Whether that correlates with accelerating displacement or continued augmentation depends less on the technology's capability than on corporate incentive structures — and equity markets are currently rewarding headcount reduction over workforce expansion.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Hartley et al.'s data tracks how many US workers use large language models like ChatGPT or Claude in their jobs. The share rose from roughly three in ten in late 2024 to nearly four in ten by end of 2025 — an 8-percentage-point gain that is fast by historical technology adoption standards. Two gaps matter beyond the headline figure. First, the survey measures whether someone has used an LLM, not how often or how deeply — a worker who tried it once counts the same as one using it six hours daily. Second, adoption is almost certainly concentrated among higher-income, more-educated workers, meaning productivity gains visible at the individual level are not evenly distributed across the workforce.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The 38.3% adoption figure, combined with the NBER finding of no net changes in hours or earnings, points to an adoption-without-displacement pattern consistent with productivity diffusion lags. The more diagnostically significant dynamic is that adoption is increasing the variance of worker outcomes rather than shifting the mean: AI-intensive adopters are gaining measurable advantages while the majority show no aggregate change — a pattern that widens inequality before any net job displacement occurs.

Escalation

The 8.2 percentage-point annual gain is likely to decelerate as adoption reaches the later-majority segment — workers with less digital fluency or in roles with less discretionary task structure. Employer mandates, as at Accenture, could steepen the curve before it flattens. Adoption in the 55–60% range would represent saturation of the addressable knowledge-worker population.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    Adoption above 38% means LLMs have crossed from early-adopter to early-majority status — historically the inflection point at which a technology becomes a baseline job requirement.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Risk

    Concentrated adoption among higher-income workers could widen wage inequality even without net job losses, as AI-augmented workers command growing salary premiums over non-adopters.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Consequence

    Employers mandating AI adoption will increasingly treat LLM proficiency as a baseline hiring criterion, disadvantaging workers without access to paid AI tools or digital training.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Opportunity

    The 61.7% of US workers not yet using LLMs represents a latent productivity reserve that targeted employer training programmes could unlock at relatively low marginal cost.

    Medium term · Suggested
Sources:Fortune·Fortune·Fortune
Mentions:China →Anders Humlum →Emilie Vestergaard →ManpowerGroup →AI fear →Oxford Economics →Arend Kapteyn →AI washing →Yale Budget Lab →National Bureau of Economic Research →
First Reported In

Update #1 · Meta cuts 20% while Big Tech spends $650bn

Fortune· 17 Mar 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
European Commission
European Commission
The European Commission's draft Annex III guidelines, closed for comment on 23 July, treat algorithmic scoring in recruitment, pay and termination as high-risk regardless of whether a human signs off, echoing Spain's Audiencia Nacional ruling 101/2026 on concealed scheduling algorithms. Brussels is shifting the fight from counting AI job losses to assigning legal liability for the tools themselves.
Office for National Statistics
Office for National Statistics
The Office for National Statistics recorded UK vacancies rising to 712,000 on 21 July, the first quarterly increase this beat has tracked, with payrolled employment down 85,000 on the year against May's 210,000 fall. The bulletin names no AI cause anywhere, and that is the point: nothing in the release confirms the displacement story it gets cited to support.
Christian Klein, SAP
Christian Klein, SAP
Christian Klein told investors on 23 July that SAP's research headcount will not grow for twelve months because AI agents and their token costs are absorbing the work, not because SAP is cutting jobs. He frames it as commercial arithmetic: the cost of AI-assisted coding tokens plus the salaries specialist AI hires command, not people being replaced by machines.
Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan
Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan
Betsey Stevenson argued that the 187,000 jobless-claims reading describes a market that hires little and fires little, not one AI is emptying. She said the real damage hides in eligibility rules and suppressed job postings, not in the headline layoff counts employers keep denying.
Comisiones Obreras, UGT and Concentrix's A Coruña works committee
Comisiones Obreras, UGT and Concentrix's A Coruña works committee
Comisiones Obreras, UGT and Concentrix's A Coruña works committee blamed Microsoft's push toward AI self-service for the 80 redundancies unions signed off on 22 July, not unavoidable business cause. A second Coruña procedure covering 80 more jobs runs to a 31 August deadline, and the unions want the state, not the employer, setting the pace of AI-driven cuts.
Stanford's 'We Must Act Now' signatories
Stanford's 'We Must Act Now' signatories
More than 200 academics, including 16 Nobel laureates, published a 13 July letter warning of AI-driven labour disruption, citing Daron Acemoglu's NBER estimate that AI's total factor productivity gain stays under 0.66% over ten years. The letter's own cited economics sit well below Goldman Sachs Research's 1.5-percentage-point estimate published the same week.