What Work Is AI Actually Doing? Insights from 4M Real Tasks

About the Research & Authors

This summary is a simplified, educational interpretation of the original academic paper. All ideas and findings are drawn directly from the researchers’ work and restated here for wider accessibility.

“What Work is AI Actually Doing? Uncovering the Drivers of Generative AI Adoption”
by Peeyush Agarwala, Harsh Agarwal, and Akshat Ranaa
Affiliation: Netaji Subhas University of Technology (NSUT)
Published on arXiv (October 2025) — Economics > General Economics category

Note: This educational summary is not affiliated with the authors or NSUT. For the complete methodology, datasets, and statistical analyses, see the official arXiv publication.

What Is This Study About?

The research behind this summary explores a simple but powerful question: What kinds of work are people actually doing with generative AI—and why?

Using over 4 million real conversations with Claude AI (Anthropic), the authors matched user activities to the U.S. O*NET occupational task taxonomy. This allowed them to examine, at a task level, where AI is genuinely being used and what features make certain tasks more suitable for AI assistance.

Rather than focusing on speculation or hype, the study provides data-driven insights into how AI fits into real-world workflows, revealing which kinds of human tasks—creative, analytical, or routine—see the most adoption and why.

Overview

Research Approach & Data

To uncover how people actually use generative AI in real work, the researchers analyzed 4 million real conversations with Claude AI (Anthropic). Each interaction was linked to a task in the U.S. O*NET database, which classifies professional activities across hundreds of occupations.

  • Each task was rated across 7 key dimensions: Routine, Cognitive Demand, Social Skills, Creativity, Domain Knowledge, Complexity, and Decision-Making.
  • Statistical and clustering techniques revealed recurring patterns of AI adoption—called task “archetypes.”
Real-world data Task-level analysis Empirical study

How the Research Was Conducted

4M AI Conversations (Claude AI by Anthropic) Mapped to O*NET Tasks (U.S. job taxonomy) Scored on 7 Dimensions (Routine, Cognitive, Creativity...) Patterns → Data-driven workflow showing how AI usage was analyzed across occupations
Key finding #1

Most AI use happens in a few tasks

The data shows a strong concentration: the top 5% of tasks account for 59% of all AI interactions. In other words, AI is used a lot on a small set of task types, and much less on the rest.

  • Top 5% tasks (most “AI-friendly”): capture 59% of usage.
  • Other 95% tasks: share the remaining 41%.

Takeaway: AI adoption is not evenly spread. It clusters around a handful of task types.

AI usage concentration Top 5 percent of tasks account for 59 percent of AI interactions; the other 95 percent account for 41 percent. Top 5% tasks → 59% of AI use Other 95% tasks → 41% Usage share (by interactions), not number of tasks Share of AI interactions from the top 5% tasks Share from the other 95% tasks
Key finding #2

Where AI Helps the Most

Generative AI is most useful in complex, cognitive, and creative tasks—the parts of work that require thinking, organizing ideas, and starting from scratch. People rely on AI to reduce “mental friction” at the beginning of knowledge work.

Typical examples include:

  • Brainstorming ideas — e.g., generating product names, content themes, or marketing angles.
  • Information synthesis — e.g., summarizing long reports, comparing research findings, or extracting key points.
  • Drafting & outlining — e.g., writing first versions of emails, blog posts, or presentations.
  • Exploratory reasoning — e.g., testing hypotheses, writing code snippets, or analyzing trade-offs.
Creativity Cognitive demand Complexity Low routine Social skills ≈ neutral
Pattern

How “High-Usage” Tasks Differ from “Low-Usage” Tasks

When researchers compared the kinds of tasks people most often use AI for (“high-usage”) versus those rarely using AI (“low-usage”), they found clear differences in the nature of the work itself.

High-usage tasks are those where AI is most frequently applied.

  • Highly creative — writing, brainstorming, content generation.
  • Mentally complex — analyzing data, summarizing text, solving open-ended problems.
  • Require decisions or judgment — comparing options, planning, reasoning.
  • Low routine — each case is slightly different or exploratory.

Low-usage tasks are those where AI adds little benefit.

  • Repetitive or procedural — filling forms, simple calculations, standard operations.
  • Already automated — handled by existing software or scripts.
  • Heavily social or emotional — negotiations, coaching, customer empathy.

In short: the more cognitive, creative, and variable the task, the more likely people are to use AI for it.

Characteristic Differences Between Task Types

High-usage tasks (top 10%) Low-usage tasks (bottom 10%) Creativity Complexity Cognitive Effort Decision-Making Routine (lower → more AI)

The chart above shows how the top 10% of “high-usage” tasks (in blue) score higher on creativity, cognitive demand, complexity, and decision-making, while “low-usage” tasks (in gray) tend to be more routine. Social or interpersonal skills show little difference between groups.

Task archetypes

Three archetypes found in the data

1) Procedural & Analytical

Structured, logical, moderate routine, low creativity.

Average AI use
  • Clear steps & rules
  • Analysis over originality
  • Lower social demands

2) Dynamic Problem‑Solving

Low routine, highest cognitive, creative, complex and decision demands.

Highest AI use
  • Open‑ended challenges
  • Heavy information synthesis
  • Frequent judgment calls

3) Standardized Operational

Highly routine, predictable, low creativity/complexity.

Lowest AI use (via chat)
  • Often automated by other tools/APIs
  • Limited added value from chat-style AI
Human edge

Social Intelligence: Still a Human Advantage

While generative AI excels at processing information and generating ideas, it does not replace human social intelligence. Tasks that depend on empathy, emotional nuance, persuasion, or leadership remain overwhelmingly human-driven.

The study found that social skill requirements have little influence on AI adoption: people use AI primarily as a cognitive partner—to think, write, and organize information— not as a social collaborator that connects or empathizes with others.

Examples of human-centered tasks less affected by AI:

  • Negotiating or resolving conflicts within teams.
  • Mentoring, coaching, or emotionally supporting others.
  • Motivating groups and building trust or alignment.
  • Reading tone, body language, and subtle interpersonal cues.
AI Human AI thinks fast — humans connect deeply

In summary: AI supports our thinking, not our feeling. The uniquely human abilities to empathize, persuade, and inspire remain essential to effective work and leadership.

Implications

What it means for people & organizations

For people

  • Offload heavy thinking starts (ideas, drafts, synthesis).
  • Keep ownership of judgment, taste, and context.
  • Invest in AI literacy and critical evaluation skills.

For organizations

  • Target AI to complex, creative, cognitive tasks.
  • Measure beyond speed: quality & decisions.
  • Train teams to direct and review AI outputs.
Bottom line

The Big Picture

After analyzing millions of real interactions, one message stands out clearly: AI is reshaping how people think and create, not replacing what they do.

Thinking Partner

AI acts as a thinking partner — a co-creator for writing, analysis, and idea generation — not a full replacement for human work.

Concentrated Use

AI usage is highly concentrated — a small set of task types (about 5%) accounts for the majority of interactions.

Human Edge

Humans retain a clear edge in social intelligence — empathy, leadership, and ethical judgment remain distinctly human strengths.

In short: AI accelerates thought, not humanity. The future of work lies in collaboration between human insight and machine intelligence.