There is a lot of talk about how AI is transforming the way we work and live. If you strip away the noise, how are people actually using these tools right now? This week, Google published its first iteration of the AI & Economy ATLAS, an ongoing, large-scale study of how people are using Google’s AI products across 150 countries and 800 occupations. To make sense of this quickly moving landscape, the team used Google DeepMind’s Observation Clustering and Taxonomy Organisation (OCTO). OCTO allowed us to take massive, unstructured text data and distill it into clear, organised trends, all while applying the strictest privacy protections and removing sensitive information. While this is just a snapshot of a moment in time, here are a few things we're learning that challenge some common assumptions: - AI use at work is broad, but shallow: People are using AI selectively. In a typical job, AI is used for only about 21% of tasks. - It's a blue-collar tool, too: We are seeing industrial mechanics and tradespeople use conversational AI as a live collaborator to interpret complex test results or debug wiring. - The "life admin" assistant: A massive amount of AI use (over 86%) happens outside the office, helping people tackle household friction like researching purchases or licensing. Understanding how people actually interact with AI in the real world is one of the most critical steps in deploying it responsibly - and here we have possibly the world's most comprehensive study on AI and the economy. This is also just a starting point, things are evolving quickly and our aim is to share what we’re seeing with the world - take a look: https://lnkd.in/gxVCjPAp
Hi Helen King, glad to see DeepMind mapping real-world deployment patterns. Beyond reporting how humans are using these tools, is the ATLAS team also studying the reverse loop—how the models themselves dynamically adapt, drift, or anchor based on high-frequency feedback at the interaction layer? I think your team would find that layer valuable for responsible oversight, as it could challenge more common assumptions.
This is a fascinating look at how AI is being utilized across various occupations! The statistic that AI is only used for 21% of tasks really challenges the perception that it's taking over the workplace. I'm curious, what trends have you noticed in the types of tasks that people are automating? Are there specific industries where AI is making a more significant impact?
One finding that stands out is that AI adoption is broad but still relatively targeted within each role. That suggests the biggest opportunity isn't replacing entire jobs—it's helping people perform specific tasks better. Understanding how people actually use AI in the real world is essential for building tools that solve practical problems rather than chasing assumptions.
the interesting part is that adoption isn't about replacing jobs. it's becoming another tool people reach for whenever the cost of figuring something out is higher than asking ai.
I have personally used AI to manifest a backyard mechanic out of my pocket to help me fix an overheating car with a coolant bleed procedure that would work on the fly. Walked be through diagnostics in 15 minutes. It's a blue collar tool alright! I absolutely love it even with the Algorithmic Bias bugs. It's awesome to see that so many are finding uses for it!
This is an insightful report and it is consistent with my impression - AI is very good in a defined area for some "capable" users (who know what s/he wants to do) and full automation is tough. I see the approach adopted in OCTO is quite similar (and of course OCTO is far more complicated than mine) in synthesizing survey data for research. https://pubsonline.informs.org/do/10.1287/orms.2026.02.07/full/
Вы научились пользоваться ИИ? пока нормальные люди создают AGI точнее создали и уже развивают... круто.
Interesting findings on how AI is actually being used in everyday work and life.
One methodological nuance I found especially useful is that the 21% figure captures the breadth of occupational tasks reaching the study’s saturation threshold—not how much working time those tasks account for or their share of total task volume. In the blue-collar examples, this means that AI use in selected diagnostic and interpretive tasks should not be read as a measure of how much of the occupation as a whole has been transformed.