Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14588 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866908532574519296 |
|---|---|
| author | Baily, Martin Byrne, David Kane, Aidan Soto, Paul |
| author_facet | Baily, Martin Byrne, David Kane, Aidan Soto, Paul |
| contents | With the advent of generative AI (genAI), the potential scope of artificial intelligence has increased dramatically, but the future effect of genAI on productivity remains uncertain. The effect of the technology on the innovation process is a crucial open question. Some inventions, such as the light bulb, temporarily raise productivity growth as adoption spreads, but the effect fades when the market is saturated; that is, the level of output per hour is permanently higher but the growth rate is not. In contrast, two types of technologies stand out as having longer-lived effects on productivity growth. First, there are technologies known as general-purpose technologies (GPTs). GPTs (1) are widely adopted, (2) spur abundant knock-on innovations (new goods and services, process efficiencies, and business reorganization), and (3) show continual improvement, refreshing this innovation cycle; the electric dynamo is an example. Second, there are inventions of methods of invention (IMIs). IMIs increase the efficiency of the research and development process via improvements to observation, analysis, communication, or organization; the compound microscope is an example. We show that GenAI has the characteristics of both a GPT and an IMI -- an encouraging sign that genAI will raise the \textit{level} of productivity. Even so, genAI's contribution to productivity \textit{growth} will depend on the speed with which that level is attained and, historically, integrating revolutionary technologies into the economy is a protracted process. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2505_14588 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Generative AI at the Crossroads: Light Bulb, Dynamo, or Microscope? Baily, Martin Byrne, David Kane, Aidan Soto, Paul General Economics Economics With the advent of generative AI (genAI), the potential scope of artificial intelligence has increased dramatically, but the future effect of genAI on productivity remains uncertain. The effect of the technology on the innovation process is a crucial open question. Some inventions, such as the light bulb, temporarily raise productivity growth as adoption spreads, but the effect fades when the market is saturated; that is, the level of output per hour is permanently higher but the growth rate is not. In contrast, two types of technologies stand out as having longer-lived effects on productivity growth. First, there are technologies known as general-purpose technologies (GPTs). GPTs (1) are widely adopted, (2) spur abundant knock-on innovations (new goods and services, process efficiencies, and business reorganization), and (3) show continual improvement, refreshing this innovation cycle; the electric dynamo is an example. Second, there are inventions of methods of invention (IMIs). IMIs increase the efficiency of the research and development process via improvements to observation, analysis, communication, or organization; the compound microscope is an example. We show that GenAI has the characteristics of both a GPT and an IMI -- an encouraging sign that genAI will raise the \textit{level} of productivity. Even so, genAI's contribution to productivity \textit{growth} will depend on the speed with which that level is attained and, historically, integrating revolutionary technologies into the economy is a protracted process. |
| title | Generative AI at the Crossroads: Light Bulb, Dynamo, or Microscope? |
| topic | General Economics Economics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14588 |