The research, titled 'Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI,' demonstrates that this stigma is widespread across various demographics, with no specific group being exempt from negative evaluations.

Conversely, if AI is perceived as useful for a particular task, it can lead to improved perceptions of AI users, resulting in higher task fit ratings.

However, the study also found that for manual tasks, AI use negatively impacted perceived task fit, while for digital tasks, it was viewed more favorably, helping to offset negative perceptions.

The findings underscore the social costs associated with AI usage, particularly for tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, which are often scrutinized in professional settings.

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals significant social penalties for employees using AI tools at work, indicating that coworkers often perceive these users as lazy or less competent.

Ultimately, the bias against AI users persists regardless of whether AI use is common or uncommon in the workplace, indicating a robust social penalty that needs to be addressed.

Interestingly, demographic factors such as age, gender, or occupation did not influence perceptions of AI users, suggesting that negative biases are universally shared.

In a series of experiments involving over 4,400 participants, researchers found that managers were less likely to hire candidates who admitted to using AI tools, although their own use of AI did not affect their hiring preferences.

This study highlights a paradox where, despite AI tools enhancing performance, they can simultaneously harm the reputations of those who use them.

The final experiments indicated that when AI tools are deemed appropriate and beneficial for specific tasks, the negative perceptions associated with their use significantly diminish.

Moreover, the stigma surrounding AI usage can lessen when users openly communicate their use and when managers themselves are AI users.

Overall, the research reveals that generative AI users anticipate negative judgments compared to those who do not use such tools, highlighting the need for a cultural shift in the perception of AI in the workplace.