Using AI at work might hurt your professional reputation, study finds

The so-called artificial intelligence (AI) super users enthusiastically utilize the technology for work and say it helps them to get ahead. But a new study says that using these tools can invite social stigma.

A study by Duke University has claimed that using AI at work might damage an employee’s professional reputation, adding that while generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude may indeed boost productivity, their usage invites social stigma.

Over 4,400 participants were enrolled in the study titled “Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The findings reveal a consistent pattern of bias against those who use AI for work.

“Individuals who use AI tools face negative judgments about their competence and motivation from others,” says the study.

“These judgments manifest as both anticipated and actual social penalties, creating a paradox where productivity-enhancing AI tools can simultaneously improve performance and damage one's professional reputation.”

This is a potential barrier to AI adoption, highlighting how social perceptions may reduce the acceptance of helpful technologies in the workplace.

Furthermore, if others think you’re using AI because you’re incompetent or even lazy, you’re probably going to actively conceal your AI use in professional settings, the study points out. That’s because you already believe you’ll be evaluated as lazier, less competent, and less diligent.

The authors of the study rightly point out that scholars have devoted considerable effort to understanding why people are reluctant to use AI at work – but mostly focused on how the technology itself is perceived.

A study from Denmark recently found that generative AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT or Gemini, have had almost no impact on salaries and jobs thus far.

However, they have not explored the social evaluation consequences of AI use, researchers say.

“This is an important oversight because people care about how their actions will be perceived by others. People may choose not to use AI – or not to disclose their use of AI – if they expect to incur a social penalty. We propose that this social evaluation penalty is an overlooked barrier to AI adoption,” says the study.

Cybernews recently reported on AI super users who tap the technology every day to analyze data, polish their writing, learn new skills, and reclaim hours of time – or at least swap the boring stuff for something more interesting or creative.

But another study from Denmark recently found that generative AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT or Gemini, have had almost no impact on salaries and jobs thus far.

“AI chatbots have had no significant impact on earnings or recorded hours in any occupation. <...> Our findings challenge narratives of imminent labor market transformation due to generative AI,” the researchers said.