Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2504.01566

GPT Adoption and the Impact of Disclosure Policies

Abstract

Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, have proven effective in content generation and productivity enhancement. However, legal risks associated with these tools lead to adoption variance and concealment of AI use within organizations. This study examines the impact of disclosure on ChatGPT adoption in legal, audit and advisory roles in consulting firms through the lens of agency theory. We conducted a survey experiment to evaluate agency costs in the context of unregulated corporate use of ChatGPT, with a particular focus on how mandatory disclosure influences information asymmetry and misaligned interests. Our findings indicate that in the absence of corporate regulations, such as an AI policy, firms may incur agency costs, which can hinder the full benefits of GPT adoption. While disclosure policies reduce information asymmetry, they do not significantly lower overall agency costs due to managers undervaluing analysts' contributions with GPT use. Finally, we examine the scope of existing regulations in Europe and the United States regarding disclosure requirements, explore the sharing of risk and responsibility within firms, and analyze how incentive mechanisms promote responsible AI adoption.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cathy Yang, David Restrepo Amariles, Leo Allen, Aurore Troussel. 2025-04-02. GPT Adoption and the Impact of Disclosure Policies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01566

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Local Media and the Shaping of Social Norms: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak

Media's influence on norms and behavior is widely recognized. Less is known about the role played by media being local. I examine this in a high-stakes context, the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. I exploit quasi-random variation in access to radio and the timing of a public-health campaign aired on community radio. I find that 12-17% of Ebola cases could have been prevented if places with access to a neighboring community radio station had instead had their own. Impacts are driven by radio being local rather than by ethno-linguistic belonging. Local media facilitates coordination in behaviors observed and sanctioned locally.

econ.GN

Productivity Shocks and Input Misallocation: A Decomposition

This paper asks how much input misallocation productivity uncertainty generates and at which stage of input decisions it arises. I separate revenue productivity by when each component is revealed and trace each into the gap between an input's marginal revenue product and its price. In six European countries, shocks revealed after an input is committed account for 20 percent of capital gap dispersion and 5 percent of labor gap dispersion. An unanticipated one percent rise in productivity raises the capital gap by 0.92 percent and the labor gap by 0.19 percent, because most of the shock passes into the wage.

econ.GN

When Do Type-Specific Wages Buffer Distributional Incidence in TANK?

When do relative wages buffer the unequal incidence of aggregate shocks? I derive a consumption-gap decomposition and a present-value condition for partial offset in a TANK model. An extension separates wage-setting demand elasticity from substitution between labor segments and allows each segment to contain both financial types. With a zero inherited wage gap and a same-sign discounted wedge, substitution above one gives offsetting earnings reallocation; substitution below one gives amplification. The channel disappears when financial types have identical segment exposure. Numerical experiments assess these mechanisms, shock persistence, policy feedback, and aggregate-IRF matching. In the nested perfect-alignment monetary benchmark, the peak consumption gap is about two-fifths smaller under type-specific wages than under the common-wage closure. These are conditional model comparisons, not empirical effect estimates or welfare rankings.

econ.GN