While tech companies market AI as a productivity tool for everyone, a UK government study reveals an unexpected result: Neurodiverse employees may be benefiting far more from chatbots than their neurotypical colleagues.
The UK’s Department for Business and Trade recently released evaluation results from its Microsoft 365 Copilot trial showing that while overall satisfaction was 72 percent, neurodiverse employees reported statistically higher satisfaction (at a 90 percent confidence level) and were more likely to recommend the tool (at a 95 percent confidence level) than other respondents.
“It’s leveled the playing field,” one participant with ADHD told researchers during follow-up interviews. One user with dyslexia said that the tool “empowered” them to perform tasks with confidence they previously lacked, particularly in report writing. Another dyslexic participant drew direct comparisons to existing accessibility software, noting that Copilot “does a hell of a lot more” than traditional assistive technology while being “embedded in your applications” rather than requiring separate programs.
The reported benefits extended beyond neurodiversity. Users with hearing disabilities reported that AI-powered meeting transcription allowed them to participate more fully in discussions. “I can very quickly recall and be able to share my inputs rather than sit quietly thinking I missed the point,” one participant explained, describing how constant focus requirements in meetings left them exhausted.
The study, titled “The Evaluation of the M365 Copilot Pilot in the Department for Business and Trade,” suggests that AI tools might be addressing workplace accessibility gaps that traditional accommodations have missed. The department conducted the study between October 2024 and March 2025 using diary studies, interviews, and observed tasks to measure how the AI assistant affected different user groups.
The finding emerges from 300 participants who consented to analysis out of 1,000 licenses distributed, though the study doesn’t specify how many identified as neurodiverse. While the 90 percent confidence for satisfaction falls below typical academic standards, the stronger finding for likelihood to recommend suggests a meaningful difference.
These experiences echo some personal accounts online from autistic and ADHD users who describe AI as providing scaffolding for their writing and executive function needs. Some users also find value in having help decoding social subtext in workplace communications or suggesting appropriate professional language.
Beyond traditional accommodations
Even with what appears to be generally positive reviews of AI assistants for neurodivergent people who responded to the study, there’s still plenty of room for nuanced takes on the overall potential of AI language models. The Register reported on the same study Thursday, emphasizing a lack of clear productivity gains and issues with Excel and PowerPoint outputs found by the researchers. The accessibility findings show the impact of AI from a different angle—one that Silicon Valley executives racing for flashy investment-attracting concepts like “superintelligence” might not consider as often.
The disconnect between AI’s promised productivity revolution and its actual impact might reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about where these tools excel. Traditional productivity gains require AI to outperform humans at tasks we’re already good at—a high bar that current technology struggles to clear consistently. But for accessibility, AI doesn’t need to be perfect; it just needs to bridge gaps that would otherwise exclude people entirely. The difference between writing a report 20 percent faster and being able to write a report at all represents two entirely different value propositions.
For people with dyslexia in any setting, AI assistants might serve as writing aids that go beyond traditional spell-checkers, potentially helping with sentence structure and organizing thoughts without requiring specialized software. People with ADHD might be able to use these tools as executive function support, helping break down complex tasks and organize scattered thoughts.
Some users report using AI to overcome procrastination and create structure as transformative for managing ADHD symptoms. “ChatGPT can help us hash things out so that we feel more prepared, comfortable, and confident in communicating with others,” a reader named Lena told ADDitude magazine.
For those with visual impairments, language models can summarize visual content and reformat information. Tools like ChatGPT’s voice mode with video and Be My Eyes allow a machine to describe real-world visual scenes in ways that were impossible just a few years ago.
AI language tools may be providing unofficial stealth accommodations for students—support that doesn’t require formal diagnosis, workplace disclosure, or special equipment. Yet this informal support system comes with its own risks. Language models do confabulate—the UK Department for Business and Trade study found 22 percent of users identified false information in AI outputs—which could be particularly harmful for users relying on them for essential support.
When AI assistance becomes dependence
Beyond the workplace, the drawbacks may have a particular impact on students who use the technology. The authors of a 2025 study on students with disabilities using generative AI cautioned, “Key concerns students with disabilities had included the inaccuracy of AI answers, risks to academic integrity, and subscription cost barriers,” they wrote. Students in that study had ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism, with ChatGPT being the most commonly used tool.
Mistakes in AI outputs are especially pernicious because, due to grandiose visions of near-term AI technology, some people think today’s AI assistants can perform tasks that are actually far outside their scope. As research on blind users’ experiences suggested, people develop complex (sometimes flawed) mental models of how these tools work, showing the need for higher awareness of AI language model drawbacks among the general public.
For the UK government employees who participated in the initial study, these questions moved from theoretical to immediate when the pilot ended in December 2024. After that time, many participants reported difficulty readjusting to work without AI assistance—particularly those with disabilities who had come to rely on the accessibility benefits. The department hasn’t announced the next steps, leaving users in limbo. When participants report difficulty readjusting to work without AI while productivity gains remain marginal, accessibility emerges as potentially the first AI application with irreplaceable value.
