[48terry]

Your second paragraph appears to be 3 different instances of saying "X does not necessarily point to productivity gains... but in the case of AI, X definitely means productivity" without really saying why that is true or why other explanations do not fit.

Adoption meaning productivity supposes there are no other dominant factors for the AI push nor AI retention. It is possible for practices to be picked up or continued in spite of causing productivity DROPS. What studies have suggested are factors that make for productive work environments and what is actually enforced in the workplace are different things.

[aspenmartin]

It’s 3 different weak but complimentary proxies. We form beliefs from imperfect evidence and I find these fairly convincing when it’s hard to find any hard evidence of no productivity and exactly the scenario you would expect under the hypothesis that we do see productivity gains. None of this is supposed to be unassailable. I would challenge then if you disagree what the evidence you have for this is?

Adoption implying at least some significant productivity gains doesn’t contradict there being other factors. You’re seeing entire companies reshaped. The argument is this is all for show or CEOs are in some sort of idiot class?

“It is possible for practices to be picked up or continued in spite of causing productivity drops” well of course. I just find that incredibly far away from Occam’s razor.

My point is: we have lots of evidence that’s highly consistent with real productivity gains, and I don’t see many pieces of evidence to the contrary.