Collaborating with ai agents: Field experiments on teamwork, productivity, and performance
Abstract
To uncover how AI agents change productivity, performance, and work processes, we introduce Pairit -- an experimentation platform enabling humans and AI agents to collaborate in integrative workspaces. In a large-scale marketing experiment on the platform, 2310 participants were randomly assigned to human-human and human-AI teams. The teams exchanged 183,691 messages and created 63,656 image edits, 1,960,095 ad copy edits, and 10,375 AI-generated images while producing 11,138 ads for a large think tank. Analysis of fine-grained communication, collaboration, and workflow logs revealed that collaborating with AI agents increased communication by 63% and allowed humans to engage in 71% less direct text editing. While human-AI teams engaged in 18% more process and content communication, human-human teams engaged in 29% more social and emotional communication. Humans in human-AI teams experienced 73% greater productivity per worker and produced higher-quality ad copy, while human-human teams produced higher-quality images, suggesting AI agents require fine-tuning for multimodal workflows. Field tests of the ad campaigns accumulated ~5M ad impressions and revealed that ads with higher image quality (produced by human-human collaborations) and higher text quality (produced by human-AI collaborations) performed significantly better on click-through rates, view through rates, and cost per click metrics. Together, these results suggest that human collaboration with AI agents significantly reshapes communication patterns and work processes and increases productivity, while improving some dimensions of output quality and deteriorating others. We hope the release of the extensible Pairit platform will accelerate RCTs of human-AI collaboration across a variety of work tasks and contexts.
Study specs
Large-scale randomized controlled trials using Pairit platform with human-human and human-AI teams performing collaborative marketing tasks.
- Discipline
- Human-AI Interaction
- Sample Size
- N=2,310
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Productivity, communication patterns, workflow processes, ad quality (text and image), and ad performance metrics.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.