The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has disavowed the research of a PhD student on the impact of AI on the workforce that had impressed the field experts. On Friday (May 16), MIT released a statement, announcing that it reviewed the paper following concerns and decided that it should be "withdrawn from public discourse.
"MIT has contacted arXiv to formally request that the paper be withdrawn and The Quarterly Journal of Economics, where it had been submitted," read the statement by MIT.
The university said it had requested the study author to submit the request to withdraw the paper, but they had not done it yet.
"Our understanding is that only authors of papers appearing on arXiv can submit withdrawal requests. We have directed the author to submit such a request, but to date, the author has not done so. Therefore, in an effort to clarify the research record, MIT respectfully request that the paper be marked as withdrawn from arXiv as soon as possible."
The paper titled "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation" was published on the preprint site, arXiv, in November 2024. Preprints, by definition, have not yet undergone peer review, but the study received considerable attention, including from the likes of MIT economists Daron Acemoglu (who recently won the Nobel Prize) and David Autor. The latter told the Wall Street Journal that he was "floored" by the findings.
The study claimed that AI's introduction to a large but unidentified materials science lab led to the discovery of more materials and more patent filings. However, the increased efficiency came at the cost of reducing researchers' satisfaction with their work.
Also Read | Anti-Ageing Influencer Bryan Johnson Removes Plasma From His Body, Replaces It With...
Both Mr Acemoglu and Mr Autor, who were acknowledged in the paper footnote, released a statement alongside the MIT release. saying they found inconsistencies in the study after its release.
"Over time, we had concerns about the validity of this research, which we brought to the attention of the appropriate office at MIT. In early February, MIT followed its written policy and conducted an internal, confidential review," read the joint statement.
The researcher responsible for the study is no longer affiliated with the university, MIT added.
