Generative‑AI Study: Usage & Attitudes
At the end of last year we ran a study with 900‑respondent online survey, fielded December 1 – 15, 2024 among U.S. adults 18+. All percentages are of the total sample unless otherwise stated.
After diving into the data, thanks in no small part to ChatGPT (shoutout to o3-pro!), some fascinating patterns have emerged across both consumer and enterprise behaviors. While what follows highlights just a few of the most compelling insights, especially around “trust to build GenAI systems” and age demographics, there’s a rich story behind every number.
For instance, C-suite executives and key decision-makers show a striking willingness to embrace GenAI, even when privacy risks are on the table. Their appetite for innovation often outweighs their concerns, setting them apart from middle management and IT professionals, who tend to be more cautious.
Another eye-opening finding: fewer than one in five users have ever paid for a GenAI subscription. Among those who do invest, ChatGPT Plus and Microsoft Copilot for Microsoft 365 dominate as the go-to choices.
These highlights are just the tip of the iceberg. There’s much more beneath the surface, waiting to be explored.
1 · Executive summary
- Mainstream penetration: 59 % have already used a Gen‑AI service.
- Platform landscape: ChatGPT is the most‑tried brand (42 % ever‑used), but Microsoft Copilot scores highest on perceived value (7.5 / 10) thanks to deep Office integration.
- Everyday use loop: Search‑style look‑up → drafting/writing → creative ideation → simplification → summarisation.
- Barriers: Accuracy doubts and privacy/security fears each cited by ~¾ of non‑users; lack of clear benefit and onboarding confusion come next.
- Demographic patterns: Adoption peaks at 72 % among Gen Z and 25‑34s, drops to 43 % among 65 +. Men out‑adopt women by 22 pp (74 % vs 52 %).
- Trust leaders: When asked “Who do you trust to build Gen‑AI?” (1 = least, 10 = most), Google (6.9) and Microsoft (6.9) share first place, edging Apple (6.7); Amazon (6.2) and OpenAI (5.9) round out the top five (§ 9).
2 · Overall adoption & frequency
3 · Platforms & perceived value (users only)
* 1 = “not valuable” … 10 = “extremely valuable”.
4 · Demographic deep‑dive – highest perceived value by cohort
5 · Top use cases among users (multiple choice)
6 · Adoption gaps & head‑room
7 · Why the 41 % non‑users abstain
8 · Strategic implications
- Integration beats novelty. Copilot’s success springs from Outlook, Word and PowerPoint embeds.
- Reliability first. Source citation and domain guard‑rails will win the accuracy‑worried third of the market.
- Privacy narratives matter. On‑device processing (Apple) and clear data‑handling policies convert older and regulated users.
- Upskill the mid‑career crowd. 45‑54s have the sharpest anxiety‑to‑usage gap; role‑specific playbooks turn fear into fluency.
- Employer enablement kits. A turnkey compliance brief can unlock the 31 % waiting for organisational approval.
9 · Trust & confidence – “Who do you trust to build Gen‑AI?”
9.1 Overall ranking (n = 501 respondents)
Observation: Consumer‑facing tech giants out‑score specialist AI labs; brand familiarity and perceived governance drive trust.
9.2 Trust leaders by demographic
Patterns worth noting
- Familiarity breeds trust. Google and Microsoft dominate in cohorts that live in their ecosystems (Chrome/Android, Office 365).
- Apple’s privacy halo resonates with the youngest (campus iPhone culture) and 55‑65 Boomers who worry about data abuse.
- OpenAI’s brand appeal is passionate but niche. Its trust score sits mid‑table even though ChatGPT is the most‑tried app.
- Specialist labs trail. Anthropic, xAI and Perplexity all score below 4.7/10, reflecting low consumer brand awareness.
Appendix – methodology & definitions
- Sampling frame: National consumer panel with quotas on age, gender and region.
- Field‑work dates: December 1 – 15, 2024.
- Weighting: Results unweighted; raw n displayed.
- Scales: Value & trust both measured 1 = low to 10 = high; cohort break‑outs shown only where ≥ 10 responses per cell (except where noted).