AI-first company

Claim check

“77% of employees say AI has added to their workload (Upwork)”

The 77% is in Upwork’s July 2024 report, but it is not about all employees. It counts workers who use AI and named at least one way AI had “decreased their productivity and added to their workload”, such as more time checking its output. Upwork’s own press release dropped “using AI”, and later articles said AI had “only” added work, or had not reduced it. The report does not say how many people this is, or whether AI also saved them time.

By
Last reviewed
Corrections
Report an error
Verdict Needs correcting

The source exists, but the claim gets the year, the population or the wording wrong.

Kind of figure Self-reported

What people said in a survey or interview, not measured.

Holds for Workers who use AI, in a survey in the US, UK, Australia and Canada in April and May 2024, who picked at least one item from a list of ways AI added to their work. It does not show that AI made work heavier overall, or that 77% of all employees feel this.

The claim

77% of employees say AI has added to their workload, according to a study by the Upwork Research Institute.

How the claim travelled

Each step is a publication that passed the claim on, oldest first, with its exact words and what changed.

  1. Research

    Upwork Research Institute · archived copy

    “Over three in four (77%) say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload in at least one way.”

    What changed: Origin. Walr ran a survey of 2,500 people in four countries for Upwork in April and May 2024. The 77% counts workers who use AI and picked at least one listed burden, such as more time reviewing AI output (39%). The report does not say how many people answered.

  2. Press release

    Upwork · archived copy

    “Data reveals 96% of C-suite leaders expect AI to boost worker productivity, but 77% of employees report AI has increased their workload”

    What changed: The sponsor’s own headline drops “using AI”, so the figure reads as all employees. “In at least one way” is dropped, so one listed burden becomes an “increased” workload. The body of the release keeps “employees using AI” once.

  3. Press

    heise online (Eva-Maria Weiß) · archived copy

    “77 percent of 2,500 respondents said that AI had increased their workload even more - although the figures differed depending on people's position.”

    What changed: The 77% is put on all 2,500 respondents, who include 1,250 executives. “Even more” is added. Further down, the article says AI had “only added” to employees’ workload. heise cites a Forbes article that reported the press release.

  4. Press

    B2B News · archived copy

    “The Upwork Research Institute’s 2024 survey of 2,500 executives and employees found 77% of workers using AI said it added to their workload, not reduced it.”

    What changed: “Not reduced it” is added. The report does not say whether AI saved more time than it cost. “Decreased their productivity” and “in at least one way” are gone. The headline says “77% of workers”. The figure is repeated two years after the survey.

What the primary source says

The report is From Burnout to Balance: AI-Enhanced Work Models for the Future, published as a web page by the Upwork Research Institute in July 2024. Upwork runs a marketplace for hiring freelancers. The report sets full-time employees who feel burdened by AI against freelancers who are more “AI-ready”, and recommends “leveraging alternative talent pools”. A high burden figure for employees supports what Upwork sells.

How it was done. Walr, a firm that runs online survey panels, surveyed people for Upwork and Workplace Intelligence, an HR research firm, between 16 April and 5 May 2024. 2,500 people in the US, UK, Australia and Canada took part: 1,250 executives, 625 full-time salaried employees and 625 freelancers. All used a computer for work at least “sometimes”. The report gives no weighting and no response rate, and the questionnaire is not public.

What it found. 96% of the executives said they expected AI tools to raise their company’s productivity. 47% of workers using AI said they had “no idea” how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect.

Where the 77% appears. The executive summary says that, of employees using AI, “77% say these tools have actually decreased their productivity and added to their workload.” The body gives the full wording: “Over three in four (77%) say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload in at least one way.” It lists examples: more time reviewing or moderating AI-generated content (39%), more time learning to use the tools (23%) and being asked to do more work (21%). So the 77% is the share of AI users who picked at least one item from a list. The report does not say how many respondents used AI, or whether the freelancers are counted.

What is wrong with the claim

  • It is not about all employees. The 77% is a share of workers who use AI. Upwork’s own press release headline dropped “using AI”, and most retellings follow it. One article put the figure on all 2,500 respondents, half of them executives.
  • One listed burden is not a heavier workload. Anyone who named at least one item, such as more time checking AI output, is in the 77%. The report does not say whether AI saved more time than it cost, so it cannot show that work became heavier overall.
  • Later retellings added words that are not in the report. An article in 2024 said AI had “only added” to workload. One in 2026 said AI “added to their workload, not reduced it”.
  • The number of people behind it is unknown. At most 625 employees, or 1,250 employees and freelancers, could be in the base. The report does not say how many used AI.
  • It is a survey for a company with an interest in the answer. The respondents were in four English-speaking countries, and answered in spring 2024.

What other sources found

Surveys run by researchers with nothing to sell find that extra work from AI is real but affects fewer people, and that most users report saving time. Humlum and Vestergaard surveyed about 25,000 workers in 11 occupations in Denmark and linked the answers to official records. Chatbots saved time “for 64%–90% of users”, depending on the occupation, and “created new job tasks for 8.4% of workers”. A US survey by Bick, Blandin and Deming, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, found that users of generative AI said it saved them 5.4% of their work hours. Both figures are self-reported. In an experiment at 66 firms, workers who were given Microsoft 365 Copilot and used it spent about two fewer hours a week on email, measured from software records.

Upwork’s report is worth citing for what AI users said costs them time, led by reviewing AI output (39%). It is not a source for the share of employees whose workload AI has increased.

What to cite instead

In a survey for Upwork, which runs a marketplace for hiring freelancers, workers in the US, UK, Australia and Canada were asked in April and May 2024 about AI at work. 77% of those who used AI named at least one way it had added to their workload or cut their productivity; the most common was more time reviewing AI-generated content (39%). The report does not say how many people answered this question, or whether AI also saved them time.

Sources

  1. Upwork Research Institute (23 July 2024). From Burnout to Balance: AI-Enhanced Work Models for the Future. Report (web page), survey by Walr for Upwork and Workplace Intelligence. upwork.com
  2. Upwork (23 July 2024). Upwork Study Finds Employee Workloads Rising Despite Increased C-Suite Investment in Artificial Intelligence. Press release. investors.upwork.com
  3. Robinson (23 July 2024). 77% Of Employees Report AI Has Increased Workloads And Hampered Productivity, Study Finds. Forbes. The article heise cites. forbes.com
  4. Weiß (24 July 2024). Study: Employees perceive AI as extra work and a stress factor. heise online. heise.de
  5. B2B News (20 April 2026). AI burnout: 77% of workers say tools add to workload, not cut it. b2bnews.co.nz
  6. Humlum and Vestergaard (May 2025). Large Language Models, Small Labor Market Effects. Becker Friedman Institute Working Paper 2025-56. Comparison source. bfi.uchicago.edu
  7. Bick, Blandin and Deming (27 February 2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Work Productivity. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, On the Economy. Comparison source. stlouisfed.org
  8. Humlum and Vestergaard (2025). Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI. NBER Working Paper 33777 (revised March 2026). What this study did and found
  9. Dillon, Jaffe, Immorlica and Stanton (2025). Shifting Work Patterns with Generative AI. NBER Working Paper 33795; arXiv 2504.11436, version 4 (November 2025). What this study did and found