Abstract
Renault, Bergeaud, and Bosquet (hereafter RBB) argue that dating LLM adoption as the first month in which an author's abstract is flagged induces a stopping-time selection that can produce a positive event-study path even when there is no causal effect. Although this mechanism is mathematically possible, it does not constitute proof of a null effect. Recalibrating RBB's own random placebo to the detector's realized flag rate, we show that the measured association stays well above this benchmark, so the artifact is too small to explain the productivity changes. We further re-estimate the association between LLM adoption and productivity with a series of complementary designs in which the timing artifact cannot bias the estimate: a before-and-after comparison that dates adoption in one year and measures output in another, a conservative control group for difference-in-differences, an intensity-based specification that never defines an adoption date, and a rank-based measurement holding the flag rate fixed. A positive productivity association persists across all of these estimates, while the same tests run on pre-ChatGPT placebo data return null effects. The artifact RBB identify is real but bounded, and it does not account for the pattern we report.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28968
