Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Engineering Value: The Returns to Technological Talent and Investments in Artificial Intelligence

Rock, Daniel·2019
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.3427412
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Employees with technological skills are highly complementary to the intangible knowledge assets that firms accumulate. This paper describes how technical talent is a source of rents for corporate employers, particularly for the case of Google’s surprising open source launch of TensorFlow, a deep learning software package. First, I present a simple model of how employers intangible assets expose them to the returns to their employees’ skill acquisition efforts. Then, using over 180 million position records and over 52 million skill records from LinkedIn, I build a panel of firm-level skills to measure the market value of exposure to newly available deep learning talent. AI skills are strongly correlated with market value, though variation in AI skills from 2014-2017 does not explain contemporaneous revenue productivity within firms. AI-intensive companies rapidly gained market value following the launch of TensorFlow, while companies with opportunities to automate relatively larger quantities of labor with machine learning did not. Using a difference-in-differences approach, I show that the TensorFlow launch is associated with an approximate market value increase of $11 million per 1 percent increase in AI skills for AI-using firms. AI superstar firms in the top quintile also appear to benefit more over the sample period than less intensive adopters. These results suggest that the primary mechanism responsible for the market valuation increases of AI adopters at the time of the AI skill shock from TensorFlow is a revaluation of existing firm-specific technology-exposed assets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.3427412

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. M Abadi, 2016, Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning, OSDI, 16, 265
  2. T Babina, 2020, Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and industry concentration. Firm Growth, and Industry Concentration
  3. N Balasubramanian, 2018, Locked in? The enforceability of covenants not to compete and the careers of high, 10.2139/ssrn.2901745 · DOI
  4. G S Becker, 1962, Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis, Journal of Political Economy, 70, 9, 10.1086/258724 · DOI · Paper page
  5. K Bedard, 2001, Human capital versus signaling models: university access and high school dropouts, Journal of Political Economy, 109, 749, 10.1086/322089 · DOI
  6. S Benzell, 2018, Skill-biased technological change within and across firms, 2000
  7. J Bessen, 2020, Industry concentration and information technology, The Journal of Law and Economics, 63, 531, 10.1086/708936 · DOI
  8. A S Bharadwaj, 1999, Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin's q. Management science, 45, 1008, 10.1287/mnsc.45.7.1008 · DOI · Paper page
  9. N Bloom, 2018, What drives differences in management practices?, American Economic Review, 10.1257/aer.20170491 · DOI · Paper page
  10. T Bresnahan, 2010, General purpose technologies. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 761, 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)02002-2 · DOI
  11. T F Bresnahan, 2002, Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 339, 10.3386/w7136 · DOI · Paper page
  12. T F Bresnahan, 1995, General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth, Journal of Econometrics, 65, 83, 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-t · DOI · Paper page
  13. E Brynjolfsson, 2019, Quantifying the Distribution of Machine Learning's Impact on Work
  14. E Brynjolfsson, 2000, Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance, Journal of Economic perspectives, 14, 23, 10.1257/jep.14.4.23 · DOI · Paper page
  15. E Brynjolfsson, 2011, Strength in numbers: How does data-driven decisionmaking affect firm performance? Available at SSRN 1819486, 10.2139/ssrn.1819486 · DOI · Paper page
  16. E Brynjolfsson, 2002, Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 137, 10.1353/eca.2002.0003 · DOI · Paper page
  17. E Brynjolfsson, 2018, Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics, Economics of Artificial Intelligence, 10.3386/w24001 · DOI · Paper page
  18. J Bughin, 2017, Artificial intelligence -the next digital frontier, Artificial Intelligence
  19. S Caldwell, 2018, Outside options in the labor market
  20. F Chollet, 2015, Keras: Deep learning library for theano and tensorflow, 7
  21. J Claussen, 2019, The editor vs. the algorithm: Targeting, data and externalities in online news. Data and Externalities in Online News, 10.2139/ssrn.3399947 · DOI
  22. I M Cockburn, 2018, The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: An exploratory analysis, National Bureau of Economic Research, 10.3386/w24449 · DOI · Paper page
  23. C Corrado, 2009, Intangible capital and U.S. economic growth, 55, 661, 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00343.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. B Cowgill, 2018, Bias and productivity in humans and algorithms: Theory and evidence from resume screening
  25. N Crouzet, 2018, Intangibles, investment, and efficiency. AEA Papers and Proceedings
  26. N Crouzet, 2019, Understanding weak capital investment: The role of market concentration and intangibles, 10.3386/w25869 · DOI
  27. J G Cummins, 2005, A new approach to the valuation of intangible capital, Measuring Capital in the New Economy, 47, 10.7208/chicago/9780226116174.003.0003 · DOI
  28. D J Deming, 2018, STEM careers and technological change
  29. S Dewan, 2000, Information technology and productivity: Evidence from country-level data, Management science, 46, 548, 10.1287/mnsc.46.4.548.12057 · DOI · Paper page
  30. S Dewan, 1998, Firm characteristics and investments in information technology: Scale and scope effects, Information Systems Research, 9, 219, 10.1287/isre.9.3.219 · DOI · Paper page
  31. S Dewan, 2007, Investigating the risk-return relationship of information technology investment: Firm-level empirical analysis, Management science, 53, 1829, 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0739 · DOI
  32. A L Eisfeldt, 2013, Organization capital and the cross-section of expected returns, Journal of Finance, 68, 1365, 10.1111/jofi.12034 · DOI · Paper page
  33. A L Eisfeldt, 2014, The value and ownership of intangible capital, American Economic Review, 104, 189, 10.1257/aer.104.5.189 · DOI
  34. I Erel, 2018, Selecting directors using machine learning, 10.3386/w24435 · DOI
  35. M Ewens, 2017, Founder replacement and startup performance, The Review of Financial Studies, 31, 1532, 10.1093/rfs/hhx130 · DOI
  36. M Ewens, 2018, Cost of experimentation and the evolution of venture capital, Journal of Financial Economics, 128, 422, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  37. M Farboodi, 2019, Big data and firm dynamics, AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109, 38, 10.1257/pandp.20191001 · DOI
  38. E W Felten, 2018, A method to link advances in artificial intelligence to occupational abilities, AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108, 54, 10.1257/pandp.20181021 · DOI
  39. D Fitoussi, 2012, IT outsourcing contracts and performance measurement, Information Systems Research, 23, 129, 10.1287/isre.1100.0310 · DOI
  40. M R Frank, 2019, Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 6531, 10.1073/pnas.1900949116 · DOI · Paper page
  41. J Furman, 2018, AI and the economy, 1, 10.3386/w24689 · DOI · Paper page
  42. A Fuster, 2020, Predictably unequal? the effects of machine learning on credit markets. The Effects of Machine Learning on Credit Markets
  43. A Goldfarb, 2020, Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? A comparison of emerging technologies using data from online job postings
  44. S Greenstein, 2014, Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache, Research Policy, 43, 623, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.003 · DOI
  45. J Grennan, 2019, Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Evidence from analysts, 10.2139/ssrn.3681574 · DOI
  46. B H Hall, 1993, The Stock market's valuation of R&D investment during the 1980's. The American Economic Review, 83, 259
  47. B H Hall, 2006, R&D, productivity, and market value. IFS Working Papers, Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), 6
  48. R E Hall, 2001, The stock market and capital accumulation, The American Economic Review, 91, 1185, 10.1257/aer.91.5.1185 · DOI · Paper page
  49. R E Hall, 2004, Measuring factor adjustment costs, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 899, 10.1162/0033553041502135 · DOI
  50. R E Hall, 2017, High discounts and high unemployment, American Economic Review, 107, 305, 10.1257/aer.20141297 · DOI
  51. J Haskel, 2017, Capitalism without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy, 10.2307/j.ctvc77hhj · DOI · Paper page
  52. F Hayashi, 1982, Tobin's marginal q and average q: A neoclassical interpretation, Econometrica, 50, 213, 10.2307/1912538 · DOI · Paper page
  53. E Hippel, 2003, Open source software and the "private-collective" innovation model: Issues for organization science, Organization science, 14, 209, 10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992 · DOI · Paper page
  54. J Hirshleifer, 1978, The private and social value of information and the reward to inventive activity, Uncertainty in Economics, 541, 10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50038-3 · DOI · Paper page
  55. J J Horton, 2019, The death of a technical skill
  56. M Iansiti, 2020, Competing in the Age of AI: Strategy and Leadership When Algorithms and Networks Run the World
  57. J S Jeffers, 2017, The impact of restricting labor mobility on corporate investment and entrepreneurship
  58. W Jin, 2017, Economies before scale: Survival and performance of young plants in the age of cloud computing. Rotman School of Management Working Paper, 10.2139/ssrn.3112901 · DOI
  59. C I Jones, 2020, Nonrivalry and the economics of data, American Economic Review, 110, 2819, 10.1257/aer.20191330 · DOI · Paper page
  60. N Kaldor, 1966, Marginal productivity and the macro-economic theories of distribution: Comment on Samuelson and Modigliani, The Review of Economic Studies, 33, 309, 10.2307/2974428 · DOI
  61. M Kokkodis, 2019, Skillset diversification in online labor markets: Reputation losses and opportunity gains. Available at SSRN 3444363
  62. K Lakani, 2002, How open source software works:'free'user-to user assistance, Research Policy, 32, 923, 10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00095-1 · DOI · Paper page
  63. R E Lucas, 1967, Adjustment costs and the theory of supply, Journal of Political Economy, 75, 321, 10.1086/259289 · DOI · Paper page
  64. B Lucking, 2018, Do R&D tax credits create jobs?
  65. B Lucking, 2017, Have R&D spillovers changed?, 10.3386/w24622 · DOI
  66. H Lustig, 2011, Technological change and the growing inequality in managerial compensation, Journal of Financial Economics, 99, 601, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.09.007 · DOI
  67. D Mani, 2010, An empirical analysis of the impact of information capabilities design on business process outsourcing performance, Mis Quarterly, 39, 10.2307/20721414 · DOI · Paper page
  68. D Mani, 2012, An empirical analysis of the contractual and information structures of business process outsourcing relationships, Information Systems Research, 23, 618, 10.1287/isre.1110.0374 · DOI
  69. M G Marrano, 2009, What happened to the knowledge economy? ICT, intangible investment, and Britain's productivity record revisited, 55, 686, 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2009.00344.x · DOI · Paper page
  70. M Marx, 2011, The firm strikes back: Non-compete agreements and the mobility of technical professionals, American Sociological Review, 76, 695, 10.1177/0003122411414822 · DOI
  71. E R Mcgrattan, 2017, Intangible capital and measured productivity, 10.21034/sr.545 · DOI
  72. N Melville, 2004, Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of it business value, MIS Quarterly, 28, 283, 10.2307/25148636 · DOI · Paper page
  73. M Miric, 2020, Standardized tools and the generalizability of human capital: The impact of standardized technologies on employee mobility, 10.2139/ssrn.3554224 · DOI
  74. S Mithas, 2011, How information management capability influences firm performance, MIS quarterly, 237, 10.2307/23043496 · DOI · Paper page
  75. S Mithas, 2012, Information technology and firm profitability : Mechanisms and empirical evidence, MIS Quarterly, 36, 205, 10.2307/41410414 · DOI · Paper page
  76. E Moretti, 2004, Estimating the social return to higher education: Evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data, 121, 175, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.015 · DOI · Paper page
  77. H Mueller, 2020, Monitoring war destruction from space: A machine learning approach
  78. A Nagaraj, 2021, Information seeding and knowledge production in online communities: Evidence from OpenStreetMap, Management Science, 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3764 · DOI
  79. F Nagle, 2019, Open source software and firm productivity, Management Science, 65, 1191, 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2977 · DOI
  80. Nicolaus Henke, 2016, The age of analytics: Competing in a data-driven world
  81. A Paszke, 2017, Automatic differentiation in pytorch
  82. R H Peters, 2017, Intangible capital and the investment-q relation, Journal of Financial Economics, 123, 251, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.03.011 · DOI · Paper page
  83. M Polanyi, 1966, The logic of tacit inference, Philosophy, 41, 1, 10.1017/s0031819100066110 · DOI · Paper page
  84. M Raj, 2018, AI, labor, productivity, and the need for firm-level data, Economics of Artificial Intelligence
  85. M Roach, 2010, A taste for science? PhD scientists' academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry, 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004 · DOI · Paper page
  86. S Rosen, 1981, The economics of superstars. The American economic review, 71, 845
  87. V Sambamurthy, 2003, Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms, MIS quarterly, 237, 10.2307/30036530 · DOI · Paper page
  88. A Saunders, 2016, Valuing information technology related intangible assets, 10.25300/misq/2016/40.1.04 · DOI · Paper page
  89. A Saunders, 2015, Data assets and industry competition: Evidence from 10-K filings
  90. G Schubert, 2020, Employer concentration and outside options
  91. M Spence, 1978, Job market signaling, Uncertainty in Economics, 281
  92. E Starr, 2015, Consider this: Firm-sponsored training and the enforceability of covenants not to compete, 10.2139/ssrn.2556669 · DOI
  93. E Starr, 2017, Screening spinouts? How noncompete enforceability affects the creation, growth, and survival of new firms, Management Science, 64, 552, 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2614 · DOI
  94. F Teodoridis, 2017, Understanding team knowledge production: The interrelated roles of technology and expertise, Management Science, 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2789 · DOI
  95. N Thompson, 2017, The economic impact of moore's law: Evidence from when it faltered, 10.2139/ssrn.2899115 · DOI
  96. J Tobin, 1976, Asset markets and the cost of capital
  97. M Webb, 2019, The impact of artificial intelligence on the labor market. Available at SSRN 3482150, 10.2139/ssrn.3482150 · DOI · Paper page
  98. B W White, 1963, Principles of neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the theory of brain mechanisms, The American Journal of Psychology, 76, 10.2307/1419730 · DOI · Paper page
  99. D E Wildasin, 1984, The q theory of investment with many capital goods, 74, 203
  100. S Yang, 2001, Intangible assets and growth accounting: Evidence from computer investments, 85
  101. D Zhang, 2021, The AI index 2021 annual report
  102. N Zolas, 2021, Advanced technologies adoption and use by US firms: Evidence from the annual business survey, 10.3386/w28290 · DOI
  103. S Zyontz, 2018, Running with (CRISPR) scissors: Tool specialists and innovation with new technologies
  104. Wagebill-Based MV Hedonic Regression IT Value Engineering Value Research Value All Tech Value All Tech Value Tech w/o HK Value 05) (4.00e-05) (1.17e-05) (1.13e-05) Constant 2,448*** 2,077*** 2

Cited by

See all 35

Metadata

Authors
Rock, D.
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.3427412
Cited by
35
References
18
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.