Artificial intelligence (AI) is now used by more than half of workers in the euro area, according to a blog post from the European Central Bank (ECB). A survey of around 20,000 people across eleven countries showed that the percentage of workers using AI rose from 26% in 2024 to 52% in 2026. Despite this increase, the impact of AI on productivity remains uneven, and several challenges still limit its widespread adoption. According to the study, AI users gain an average of three hours of work per week—equivalent to nearly 8% of their working time. These time savings could potentially be seen in the overall productivity numbers, which have been rising in the euro area for several quarters. However, the study does not confirm a direct cause-and-effect relationship between AI use and productivity. For instance, even if an employee saves time using AI, that time must be effectively used by the company to improve production, quality, or to take on new tasks for productivity to increase. The use of AI is not evenly distributed across different groups. Workers with higher education are more likely to use AI, with 61% reporting its use compared to 37% of less-educated workers. The benefits of AI are most pronounced in fields like computer programming, data analysis, and automating repetitive tasks. In contrast, AI's impact is smaller in more common tasks such as searching for information or writing text. Despite its growth, AI is not universally embraced. Around a third of workers who do not use AI say it is not relevant to their jobs, and more than 40% say they don't want to use it. Other concerns include doubts about the reliability of AI tools and a lack of support from employers. Economists note that both workers and companies face ongoing challenges in adopting AI. They recommend that employers and public authorities invest more in training and improve access to AI tools to fully realize its potential for boosting productivity. The ECB emphasizes that the views presented in the blog post are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official stance of the institution.