This paper examines and finds that the answer is likely to be no. The environment examined starts with users who contribute based on their motives to create a public good. Their own actions determine the quality of that public good but also embed a free-rider problem. When AI is trained on that data, it can generate similar contributions to the public good. It is shown that this increases the incentive of human users to provide contributions that are more costly to supply. Thus, the overall quality of contributions from both AI and humans rises compared to human-only contributions. In situations where platform providers want to generate more contributions using explicit incentives, the rate of return on such incentives is shown to be lower in this environment.
Authors
- Acknowledgements & Disclosure
- Joshua Gans has drawn on the findings of his research for both compensated speaking engagements and consulting engagements. He has written the books Prediction Machines, Power & Prediction, and Innovation + Equality on the economics of AI for which he receives royalties. He is also chief economist of the Creative Destruction Lab, a University of Toronto-based program that helps seed stage companies, from which he receives compensation. He conducts consulting on anti-trust and intellectual property matters. He also has equity and advisory relationships with a number of startup firms. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3386/w32686
- Pages
- 12
- Published in
- United States of America
