The short answer
Sometimes, for some tasks, and not for free. AI assistants can make certain routine work faster, but the net gain depends on the task, on the person using the tool, and on how much time goes into checking and correcting what the assistant produces. No single figure applies to everyone, and claims of precise percentage gains should be treated with caution.
Where assistants plausibly help
The strongest cases tend to share a pattern: the task is tedious, the first version does not have to be perfect, and the person using it can quickly tell whether the result is good.
- First drafts. An email, a short report or a description can be drafted from a few bullet points, then edited. Starting from something is often easier than starting from a blank page.
- Summaries. Condensing a long document or meeting notes into key points can save reading time, as long as the summary is spot-checked against the source.
- Reformatting and rewording. Changing tone, shortening a paragraph, turning notes into a table or cleaning up grammar are low-risk jobs.
- Brainstorming. Generating a list of options, titles or questions to consider costs little, and weak suggestions are easy to discard.
- Routine code and spreadsheet help. Suggesting a formula or a small piece of code for a familiar problem can be quicker than looking it up, again provided the result is tested.
- Organizing information. Sorting messy lists, extracting dates or names from text, or drafting a checklist are common uses.
These benefits come mostly from generative AI, which can produce new text on request, rather than from fixed rule-based tools.
Where assistants help less
Some work does not fit well. Tasks that need accurate, up-to-date facts, careful judgment, deep knowledge of a particular situation, or accountability for the outcome are poor candidates for handing over. An assistant does not know your organization’s unwritten rules, your client’s history or what happened in yesterday’s meeting unless you tell it.
Tasks that are already fast also gain little. If writing a two-line reply takes thirty seconds, explaining the request to an assistant and reading the answer may take longer.
The hidden costs
The time an assistant saves in producing text can be partly or wholly consumed elsewhere.
Checking. Assistants can state false things fluently, and they can invent sources, numbers or details. Anything that matters has to be verified, which requires some knowledge of the subject. In some cases, verifying takes nearly as long as doing the work directly. This is the problem behind AI hallucinations.
Fixing and editing. Output can be generic, off-tone or subtly wrong for the purpose. Editing a mediocre draft can be slower than writing a good one if you already know what you want to say.
Prompting. Getting a useful answer often takes several tries. Prompt wording changes results, and finding wording that works is a skill that takes practice.
Learning and overhead. Time goes into learning the tool, deciding what is safe to enter, and fitting it into existing routines.
Skill drift. If you rely on a tool for something you used to do yourself, your own ability may weaken, and you may be less able to spot its mistakes. This is a possibility rather than a certainty, and it varies by person and task.
Quality drift. Faster output can encourage producing more material, not better material, which may only add to what others must read.
Privacy and confidentiality
Anything typed into an assistant may be stored or processed by a service. For confidential, personal or client information, check your organization’s rules and the provider’s terms before using one. Questions about data privacy are practical here, not abstract.
How to judge whether it is helping
Rather than trusting a feeling of speed, compare in a simple way. Pick a task you do regularly. Time yourself doing it normally a few times, and time the assisted version, including checking and fixing. If the assisted version is not clearly faster or better, it may not be worth using for that task. This is a method to try yourself, not a result we are reporting.
A hypothetical example: suppose a report normally takes 60 minutes to write. With an assistant, the draft appears in 10 minutes, but checking facts takes 20 and editing takes 25. The total is 10 + 20 + 25 = 55 minutes, a small saving, and one that would vanish if the checking took 10 minutes longer. These numbers are made up purely to show how the arithmetic works.
Practical habits
- Use assistants first on low-stakes tasks, where mistakes are cheap.
- Treat output as a draft from a fast but unreliable junior colleague.
- Verify names, figures, quotes and claims against real sources.
- Keep ownership: you remain responsible for what you send or publish.
- Note which uses save time for you and drop those that do not.
Whether assistants will change how much work gets done across a whole economy is a bigger question, and it is debated. What can be said at the individual level is that they are most useful as a way to speed up the parts of a job that are routine and easy to check, and least useful when the checking costs as much as the doing.