Daily AI use among US managers rose 16 points to 62% as excitement slipped to 51%
Daily AI use among managers at large US companies rose to 62% from 46%, while excitement fell eight points to 51%, a Wharton survey found. Fortune's account puts the new scrutiny on checking what AI produces, with no sign of a retreat from using it.
The Investor · Invest desk
Key figures: 72% of managers and above said their focus had shifted from creating outputs to managing AI-generated outputs. Among vice presidents and above the share was 82%; among managers and directors it was 63%.
| Figure | Value | Note | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Managers and above shifted to managing AI outputs | 72% | 9 | |
| Vice presidents and above | 82% | 10 | |
| Managers and directors | 63% | 10 |
What happened
- Among managers and above, 80% said AI had paid off financially, but just 28% described the returns as strongly positive.
- According to the researchers, this is the first wave of their four-year study to show usage climbing while excitement dropped.
- A Gallup survey published in April found 51% of Americans aged 14 to 29 used generative AI at least weekly while excitement fell 14 points.
Why it matters
- cost Reviewing AI output takes hours that were spent creating work, so a return figure that leaves out review time overstates the payoff.
- constraint Until companies settle who answers for an error that slips through, each task handed to an agent needs a human who signs for it. That caps how much can be handed off.
- exposure If reviewers sign off without checking, the "cognitive surrender" Wharton researchers describe, work counted as verified carries the errors that review was meant to catch.
- precedent Wharton's managers and Gallup's 14-to-29-year-olds both show regular use beside falling excitement, so a drop in enthusiasm is a weak signal that adoption is slowing.
By subtraction, 59% of managers and above called themselves excited a year ago [19], and Fortune reports that optimism this year held steady at 59% [6]. Excitement fell and optimism did not. Daily use rose 16 points [18], and Fortune describes the cooling as not a backlash [17]. The mood labels also overlap: 51% excited, 25% skeptical and 44% cautious add to 120% [21], so respondents must have been able to choose more than one, and a manager can be excited and cautious at once [2][3].
Fading novelty is the simplest explanation for the eight-point drop. Prasanna "Sonny" Tambe, co-director of Wharton Human-AI Research, told Fortune: "The amazement is kind of wearing off a little bit" [5]. Jeremy Korst, a Wharton lecturer and GBK partner, described the cooling as the move from experimenting with the technology to making it work inside an organization [16]. Sampling is a second explanation, since Fortune notes that the annual waves are separate samples and not a panel tracking the same people [8]. A third is payoff doubt forming in the gap between 80% reporting positive returns and 28% calling them strongly positive [7]. Fortune's account does not include sample sizes, a margin of error or prior-year returns figures, so none of the three can be tested from it.
We think the first fits best, because the largest change in the data is in the work after the output. Of managers and above, 72% said their focus had moved from creating outputs to managing AI-generated ones [9]. The share is 82% for vice presidents and above and 63% for managers and directors [10], a gap of 19 points [20]. "I think we have been overindexing a little bit on what agents can do, as opposed to ... what is it that we can verify that agents can do," said Tambe [11]. Organizations have not settled who answers for mistakes that slip through, Fortune reports [12]. "It's a simple question, but from an organizational perspective, it's pretty hard because it involves job roles and complicated things like that that actually take time to resolve," said Tambe [13].
Nothing in the reported figures shows managers using less AI. They are moving their attention to checking it. We would be wrong if the next wave shows the 80% slipping or the 28% shrinking while excitement keeps falling, because excitement and returns declining together would make payoff the story. A rise in the cautious and skeptical shares with returns steady would fit our view.
What to watch
- The next Wharton and GBK wave: whether the 80% positive-returns and 28% strongly-positive figures move with excitement or hold while it falls.
- Whether the researchers publish sample sizes and margins of error for the 16-point usage rise and the eight-point excitement drop.
- Whether companies name an owner for errors in AI output, the question Tambe said takes time to resolve.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence58
- Adoption70
- Hype gap−10
- Incentives40
- Confidence62
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Among managers and above at large U.S. companies, 62% reported using AI daily, up from 46% last year, according to a Wharton Human-AI Research and GBK Collective survey.
- [2]
The share of managers and above describing themselves as excited fell eight percentage points to 51%.
- [3]
A quarter of managers and above described themselves as skeptical, and 44% as cautious.
- [4]
The researchers called it the first wave in their four-year study in which usage and excitement moved in opposite directions.
- [5]
"The amazement is kind of wearing off a little bit," said Prasanna "Sonny" Tambe, a Wharton professor and co-director of Wharton Human-AI Research, who told Fortune.
- [6]
Optimism among managers and above held steady at 59%.
- [7]
80% of managers and above reported positive financial returns from AI, though only 28% called those returns strongly positive.
- [8]
The annual survey waves are separate samples rather than a panel tracking the same people.
- [9]
72% of managers and above said their focus had shifted from creating outputs to managing AI-generated outputs.
- [10]
The share who said their focus had shifted to managing AI-generated outputs was 63% among managers and directors and 82% among vice presidents and above.
- [11]
"I think we have been overindexing a little bit on what agents can do, as opposed to ... what is it that we can verify that agents can do," said Tambe.
- [12]
Organizations have not settled who answers for the mistakes that slip through.
- [13]
"It's a simple question, but from an organizational perspective, it's pretty hard because it involves job roles and complicated things like that that actually take time to resolve," said Tambe.
- [14]
Korst pointed to research by Wharton's Gideon Nave and Steven Shaw on what they call "cognitive surrender": whether reviewers are truly checking AI's work, or at what point they simply sign off.
- [15]
A Gallup survey with the Walton Family Foundation and GSV, published in April, found 51% of Americans ages 14 to 29 used generative AI at least weekly, even as excitement fell 14 percentage points from the previous year.
- [16]
Korst said the cooling reflects the move from experimenting with a technology to making it work inside an organization.
- [17]
Fortune wrote that the cooling is not a backlash.
- [18]
Daily AI use among managers and above rose 16 percentage points year on year.
- [19]
A year earlier, 59% of managers and above described themselves as excited.
- [20]
The gap between vice presidents and above (82%) and managers and directors (63%) on shifting focus to managing AI outputs is 19 percentage points.
- [21]
The excited (51%), skeptical (25%) and cautious (44%) shares sum to 120%, so respondents could select more than one description.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
- Worker attitudes toward AIFollow
- Enterprise AI AdoptionFollow
- AI oversight and accountabilityFollow