Has Generative AI Moved a Needle?

Whether you agree or disagree, "The Register" suggests the following statement about Generative AI.

Economists assert that generative AI has not replaced jobs or reduced wages, according to a report by The Register.

Let's first listen to the prime suspect.

October 2026 Update: Productivity, Time Savings and Jobs

The April 2025 headline raises a useful question, but productivity, wages and employment are different outcomes. Evidence about one does not settle the others.

A study of 5,172 customer support agents found that access to a generative AI assistant increased issues resolved per hour by 15% on average. Benefits varied: less experienced workers gained more, while the most experienced workers saw limited improvements.

A February 2026 working paper using a representative survey of Korean workers reported a 3.8% reduction in working time associated with generative AI.

However, reported time savings correlated little with changes in output. The authors suggest that workers captured much of the benefit as additional leisure during working hours.

These studies examine different settings and methods. Neither establishes what will happen to employment across the economy.

For procurement, the practical question is what happens after a task becomes faster. Does the team process more requests, improve analysis, reduce backlogs, or simply absorb more work? Measure processing time, output quality, rework, and service performance before claiming a financial benefit.

A human perspective (one among many)

I have to admit, I love AI. For me, it's the handiest interactive library, an always-available teacher, and a capable content writer.

But many people believe Generative AI is AI itself.

What about assistive and agentic AI? Isn't that a treasure trove of opportunities to eliminate routine work and optimize processes?

I dare to assume GenAI was meant to optimize research, writing, and coding, and it did.

As I practice various AI use cases in the standard Office 365 environment, I suggest the following non-exhaustive list of AI 'needle-moving' opportunities.

AI Builder and Power Automate enable optimized Office 365 workflows by improving productivity, compliance, and risk reduction across processes such as document screening, sentiment analysis, and internal communication.

Neither use case is meant to shake the foundations of our traditional working practices. Those only offer incremental productivity improvements and improved information sharing.

Whether these improvements change staffing depends on demand, process design, and management decisions. My experience with individual workflows cannot establish their wider employment effects.

My recommendation is to build review controls around the consequences of an error. A draft meeting summary and an automated supplier rejection require different safeguards. Define what needs checking, who approves consequential decisions, and how exceptions are handled.

For each use case, compare the time saved with review effort, corrections, and operating costs. That gives procurement a defensible basis for deciding where AI adds value.