CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Economic Growth and ProductivityEthics and Social Impacts of AILabor market dynamics and wage inequality

Some Simple Economics of AGI

Open access
Catalini, Christian, Hui, Xiang, Wu, Jane·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2602.20946arXiv 2602.20946
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

For millennia, human cognition was the primary engine of progress on Earth. As AI decouples cognition from biology, the marginal cost of measurable execution falls to zero, absorbing any labor capturable by metrics--including creative, analytical, and innovative work. The binding constraint on growth is no longer intelligence but human verification bandwidth: the capacity to validate, audit, and underwrite responsibility when execution is abundant. We model the AGI transition as the collision of two racing cost curves: an exponentially decaying Cost to Automate and a biologically bottlenecked Cost to Verify. This structural asymmetry widens a Measurability Gap between what agents can execute and what humans can afford to verify. It also drives a shift from skill-biased to measurability-biased technical change. Rents migrate to verification-grade ground truth, cryptographic provenance, and liability underwriting--the ability to insure outcomes rather than merely generate them. The current human-in-the-loop equilibrium is unstable: eroded from below as apprenticeship collapses (Missing Junior Loop) and from within as experts codify their obsolescence (Codifier's Curse). Unverified deployment becomes privately rational--a Trojan Horse externality. Unmanaged, these forces pull toward a Hollow Economy. Yet by scaling verification alongside agentic capabilities, the forces that threaten collapse become the catalyst for unbounded discovery and experimentation--an Augmented Economy. We derive a practical playbook for individuals, companies, investors, and policymakers. Today's defining challenge is not the race to deploy the most autonomous systems; it is the race to secure the foundations of their oversight. Only by scaling our bandwidth for verification alongside our capacity for execution can we ensure that the intelligence we have summoned preserves the humanity that initiated it.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2602.20946

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Recent research emphasizes that AI disrupts apprenticeship arrangements and the progression from entry-level to experienced work.

    “Recent research emphasizes how these changes disrupt apprenticeship arrangements and the organic progression from entrylevel to experienced work (Garicano and Rayo, 2025; Afrouzi et al., 2026; Catalini et al., 2026; Asriyan et al., 2026).”

    From The Early Impacts of AI on Employment among Recent College Graduates (2026) · cites this paper as Catalini et al., 2026

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2025). The simple macroeconomics of AI. Economic Policy, 40(121):13-58.
  2. Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2018). The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review, 108(6):1488- 1542.
  3. Amershi, S., Begel, A., Bird, C., DeLine, R., Gall, H., Kamar, E., Nagappan, N., Nushi, B., and Zimmermann, T. (2019). Software engineering for machine learning: A case study. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).
  4. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., and Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565. · arXiv
  5. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3):155-173.
  6. Athey, S., Bryan, K. A., and Gans, J. S. (2020). The allocation of decision authority to human and artificial intelligence. In AEA Papers and Proceedings, volume 110, pages 80-84. American Economic Association.
  7. Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3):3-30.
  8. Autor, D. H., Levy, F., and Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4):1279-1333.
  9. Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirho- seini, A., McKinnon, C., et al. (2022). Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073. · arXiv
  10. Baker, B., Huizinga, J., Gao, L., Dou, Z., Guan, M. Y., Madry, A., Zaremba, W., Pachocki, J., and Farhi, D. (2025). Monitoring reasoning models for misbehavior and the risks of promot- ing obfuscation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11926. Blog post: https://openai.com/index/ chain-of-thought-monitoring/. · arXiv
  11. Baker, G. P. (1992). Incentive contracts and performance measurement. Journal of Political Economy, 100(3):598-614.
  12. Beane, M. (2019). Shadow learning: Building robotic surgical skill when approved means fail. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1):87-123.
  13. Ben-Porath, Y. (1967). The production of human capital and the life cycle of earnings. Journal of Political Economy, 75(4):352-365.
  14. Bowman, S. R. et al. (2022). Measuring progress on scalable oversight for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03540. · arXiv
  15. Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitzig, Z. (2025). AI's use of knowledge in society. In Agrawal, A. K., Brynjolfsson, E., and Korinek, A., editors, The Economics of Transformative AI. University of Chicago Press. NBER Conference Volume, Chapter 12.
  16. Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., and Syverson, C. (2021). The productivity J-Curve: How intangi- bles complement general purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1):333-372.
  17. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1):67-90.
  18. Catalini, C. and Gans, J. S. (2020). Some simple economics of the blockchain. Communications of the ACM, 63(7):80-90.
  19. Catalini, C., Wu, J., and Zhang, K. (2025). What gets measured, AI will automate. Harvard Business Review.
  20. Chopra, A., Bhattacharya, S., Salvador, D., Paul, A., Wright, T., Garg, A., Ahmad, F., Schwarze, A. C., Raskar, R., and Balaprakash, P. (2025). The iceberg index: Measuring skills-centered exposure in the AI economy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25137. · arXiv
  21. Courty, P. and Marschke, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to explicit performance incentives. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1):23-56.
  22. Deutsch, D. (2011). The beginning of infinity: Explanations that transform the world. Penguin UK.
  23. Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., and Rock, D. (2024). GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of large language models. Science, 384(6702):1306-1308.
  24. Felten, E., Raj, M., and Seamans, R. (2021). Occupational, industry, and geographic exposure to artificial intelligence: A novel dataset and its potential uses. Strategic Management Journal, 42(12):2195-2217.
  25. Felten, E., Raj, M., and Seamans, R. (2023). How will language modelers like chatgpt affect occupations and industries? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01157. · arXiv
  26. Greenblatt, R., Denison, C., Wright, B., Roger, F., Marks, S., Treutlein, J., Bowman, S. R., Hubinger, E., et al. (2024). Alignment faking in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14093. · arXiv
  27. Hadfield-Menell, D., Dragan, A., Abbeel, P., and Russell, S. (2017). The off-switch game. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI).
  28. Hendrycks, D. et al. (2025). A definition of AGI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18212. · arXiv
  29. Holmstrom, B. and Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7(Special Issue):24- 52.
  30. Hubinger, E. et al. (2019). Risks from learned optimization in advanced machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01820. · arXiv
  31. Hui, X., Reshef, O., and Zhou, L. (2024). The short-term effects of generative artificial intelligence on employment: Evidence from an online labor market. Organization Science, 35(6):1977-1989.
  32. Jones, C. I. (2024). The AI dilemma: Growth versus existential risk. American Economic Review: Insights, 6(4):575-590.
  33. Mollick, E. R. (2024). Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI. Portfolio / Penguin, New York, NY.
  34. Noy, S. and Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187-192.
  35. Ovadia, Y. et al. (2019). Can you trust your model's uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncer- tainty under dataset shift. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 32.
  36. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
  37. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5):S71- S102.
  38. Scheurer, J., Balesni, M., and Hobbhahn, M. (2023). Large language models can strategically deceive their users when put under pressure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07590. · arXiv
  39. Sculley, D. et al. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 28.
  40. Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. R. (1998). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press.
  41. Stanford HAI (2025). The 2025 AI index report. Technical report, Stanford University Human- Centered AI Institute. Technical Performance chapter.
  42. Strathern, M. (1997). "Improving Ratings": Audit in the British university system. European Review, 5(3):305-321.
  43. Turner, A. M., Hadfield-Menell, D., and Tadepalli, P. (2020). Conservative agency via attainable utility preservation. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 385-391.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Catalini, C., Hui, X., & Wu, J.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Catalini, Christian
ORCID
Catalini, Christian
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2602.20946
arXiv
2602.20946
OpenAlex
W7131302437
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
artificial general intelligence, AI economics, human verification, skill-biased technological change, human-in-the-loop, AI verification, ground truth, systemic risk, human agency, economic growth constraints

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