OpenAI finds 6× productivity gap as USD 40B corporate AI spend yields 95% no return
OpenAI’s latest internal audit shows a six‑fold productivity gap between companies that have fully integrated generative AI tools and those that haven’t. While the report focuses on individual user behavior, it echoes findings from MIT’s Project NANDA, which flagged a similar disparity across entire enterprises. Both studies point to a stark mismatch: corporations have poured roughly $30 billion to $40 billion into AI projects, yet the payoff appears limited to a tiny slice of the market.
The numbers raise a simple question—why are the majority of investments falling flat? With only about five percent of organizations reportedly extracting measurable value, the data suggests that most firms are still wrestling with adoption hurdles, skill gaps, or mismatched expectations. That backdrop frames the stark reality captured in the quote below, underscoring a paradox that could reshape how executives evaluate AI spend.
**The corporate AI paradox: $40 billion spent, 95 percent seeing no return**
The corporate AI paradox: $40 billion spent, 95 percent seeing no return The individual usage gap documented by OpenAI mirrors a broader pattern identified by a separate study from MIT's Project NANDA. Despite $30 billion to $40 billion invested in generative AI initiatives, only 5 percent of organizations are seeing transformative returns. The researchers call this the "GenAI Divide" -- a gap separating the few organizations that succeed in transforming processes with adaptive AI systems from the majority that remain stuck in pilots. The MIT report found limited disruption across industries: only two of nine major sectors--technology and media--show material business transformation from generative AI use.
What does this gap mean for enterprises? The data shows a six‑fold productivity divide between the top AI users and the rest of the workforce. Companies have rolled out company‑wide subscriptions, offered training, and still see most employees barely using the tools.
According to OpenAI’s analysis of more than one million business customers, workers at the 95th percentile generate far more output than their peers, creating a measurable efficiency chasm. Meanwhile, the corporate AI paradox persists: $40 billion in spending, yet 95 percent of that investment appears to deliver no return. MIT’s Project NANDA echoes the pattern, noting that only about five percent of organizations report tangible benefits from generative‑AI initiatives.
The numbers suggest that widespread adoption remains elusive, despite the availability of resources. Whether the gap will narrow as firms refine rollout strategies is unclear; the report offers no insight into future uptake rates. For now, the evidence points to a pronounced disparity between AI‑savvy workers and the majority who have yet to integrate the technology into daily tasks.
Further Reading
- Research commissioned by OpenAI and Anthropic claims that workers are more efficient when using AI, up to one hour saved on average - Tom's Hardware
- OpenAI's 2025 enterprise AI report - Rohan's Bytes - Rohan's Bytes
- The state of enterprise AI | OpenAI - OpenAI
- 2025: The State of Generative AI in the Enterprise | Menlo Ventures - Menlo Ventures
- OpenAI won't make money by 2030 and still needs to come up with $207 billion funding shortfall, HSBC says - Fortune
More in Open Source
Google adds Gemini AI tools to Chrome for iPhone and iPad users
Why does this matter for the millions of iOS and iPadOS users who rely on Chrome as their default...
Nous Research's Nomos 1 ranks second on Putnam, trailing DeepSeekMath-V2
Nous Research just dropped Nomos 1, an open‑source model that managed to clinch second place on the...
Mistral AI launches DevStral 2 (123B), DevStral Small 2 (24B) and Vibe CLI
Why does this matter now? Open‑source AI developers have been waiting for a model that can handle...
India proposes licensing and royalty rules for AI training by Google, OpenAI
India’s tech‑policy panel is shaping a new rulebook for how AI models learn from existing content.
Intel moves to acquire SambaNova at valuation below 2021 USD 5 billion peak
Intel is edging closer to a deal that could reshape its AI‑chip ambitions, but the numbers tell a...
Common Questions Answered
What does OpenAI's internal audit reveal about the productivity gap between top AI users and other employees?
The audit shows a six‑fold productivity divide, with workers in the 95th percentile generating far more output than their peers. This gap highlights that only a small elite of users are leveraging generative AI effectively, while most employees see minimal benefit.
How much corporate spending on generative AI has been reported, and what proportion of organizations see a return?
Corporations have invested roughly $30 billion to $40 billion in generative AI projects, yet only about 5 percent of organizations report transformative returns. Consequently, around 95 percent of firms experience little to no financial payoff from these investments.
What is the "GenAI Divide" as described by MIT's Project NANDA and OpenAI's findings?
The "GenAI Divide" refers to the stark disparity between a few organizations that successfully transform processes with adaptive AI and the vast majority that do not. Both studies cite this divide as a key factor behind the limited ROI despite massive AI spending.
Despite company‑wide subscriptions and training, why do most employees still barely use generative AI tools?
OpenAI’s analysis of over one million business customers shows that even with broad access and training programs, usage remains low because only a minority of workers adopt the tools deeply enough to boost productivity. This suggests cultural or workflow barriers that prevent widespread effective adoption.