Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

When Do AI Gains Become Broadly Shareable? A Policy Threshold for AI-Driven Automation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a closed-form AI capability threshold for rent-funded universal basic income and calibrates it to U.S. data, finding the bar is 5-7 times today's automation productivity.

desk verdict The paper's 5–7x UBI capability threshold is infeasible under its own calibration because the implied capital income share exceeds one; the underlying model is clean but the headline result needs a major fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18687 v4 pith:H53LM2WP submitted 2025-05-24 econ.GN cs.AIcs.GTq-fin.EC

Aran Nayebi This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNcs.AIcs.GTq-fin.EC
keywords universalbasicincomeAIcapabilitythresholdtaskautomationrentcaptureSolow-ZeiramodelCESaggregatormarketstructurefiscalsolvency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to pin down the minimum level of AI productivity, relative to today's automation, at which AI-generated rents could alone pay for a universal basic income worth 11% of GDP—even in a worst case where no new jobs ever appear. It derives a closed-form capability threshold from a Solow–Zeira task-automation model and calibrates it to current U.S. data, finding that AI would need to be about 5–7 times as productive as pre-AI automation. The result matters because it converts a vague debate about AI and unemployment into a concrete fiscal condition, and it shows that moderate public capture of AI profits, not just raw capability, can move the economy across that threshold. The paper also finds that concentrated AI markets lower the required capability, while intense competition raises it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AI capability shifter $\gamma_t$ placed inside a Solow–Zeira CES aggregator, $Y_t = A_t\,\bigl(\gamma_t^{1-\rho}\bar{\alpha}^{1-\rho}K_t^\rho + (1-\bar{\alpha})^{1-\rho}L^\rho\bigr)^{1/\rho}$ with $\rho=(\sigma-1)/\sigma<0$. Capability multiplies the weight of the automated-task block rather than capital directly, so the capital-income share $R(\gamma_t)=\gamma_t^{1-\rho}\bar{\alpha}^{1-\rho}A_t^\rho(K_t/Y_t)^\rho$ rises monotonically in $\gamma_t$; the government's net rent is $\Theta(1-c)R(\gamma_t)Y_t$, and requiring it to cover the transfer $B$ solves to the closed-form threshold. The complementarity $\sigma<1$ generates a cost-disease effect that keeps the automated block from absorbing the whole economy, so the AI rent pool stabilizes even as capability grows. The paper then adds a Cournot conduct parameter $\theta=\sum_i s_i^2$ to show that pure profits under imperfect competition act like an extra rent source that lowers the threshold.

What would settle it

Measure realized AI capability $\gamma_t$ directly on automatable tasks over time and compare it with the calibrated threshold $\gamma^\star_t$ from Proposition 1; if the economy sustains an 11%-of-GDP transfer while measured $\gamma_t$ remains below $\gamma^\star_t$, the necessity claim in Proposition 1 is false. A second check is a policy experiment: raise the public revenue share $\Theta$ and observe whether realized AI capability growth falls enough to offset the threshold's decline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Proposition 1: in a CES task-automation economy with a fixed automated-task share $\bar{\alpha}$ and an AI capability shifter $\gamma_t$, a constant transfer $B$ is balanced in every period exactly when $\gamma_t \ge \gamma^\star_t = \bigl((B/Y_t)/(\Theta(1-c)\,\bar{\alpha}^{1-\rho} A_t^\rho \bar{\kappa}^\rho)\bigr)^{\sigma}$, with $\sigma = 1/(1-\rho) > 0$ and $\bar{\kappa}=s/(e^g-1+\delta)$. Calibrated to 2024–2025 U.S. quantities—public capture $\Theta \approx 14.5\%$, operating-cost share $c \approx 0.5$–$0.6$, automated-task share $\bar{\alpha}=0.42$, elasticity $\sigma=0.66$, savings rate $s=0.22$, depreciation $\delta\approx5.6\%$, and trend growth $g\approx1.1\%$—the threshold is roughly 5–7 times pre-AI automation productivity. Reading that threshold against AI capability-doubling estimates places the crossing between the early 2030s and mid-century. The same formula yields the policy results: raising the public share to one-third halves the threshold to about 3 times, further ownership gains taper off after 50%, and oligopolistic rents lower the bar while perfect competition raises it.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the AI capability trajectory $\gamma_t$ is an externally given productivity shifter, unaffected by the public-capture or competition policies the paper recommends; if raising $\Theta$ or nationalizing AI capital slows AI investment, the same policy that lowers the required threshold also lowers the realized capability, and the central trade-off would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At current U.S. parameters, an 11%-of-GDP UBI is fiscally solvent from AI rents once AI is between 5 and 7 times as productive as pre-AI automation, with no new jobs and no new taxes.
  • Raising the public revenue share from about 15% to one-third cuts the required capability to roughly 3 times pre-AI automation; beyond 50% ownership the gains are small.
  • Monopolistic or tightly oligopolistic AI markets make the threshold easier to reach; perfect competition makes it harder but does not make it impossible.
  • Countries with higher effective public capture—whether by taxation or by public ownership of AI assets—reach the threshold at lower capability levels.
  • The comparative statics imply a one-percentage-point rise in public share or fall in operating cost lowers the threshold roughly one-for-one.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If AI capability growth is itself slowed by higher taxes or public ownership, the same lever that reduces $\gamma^\star_t$ could also reduce realized $\gamma_t$; the paper's policy ranking then needs an endogenous-investment model to survive, and the Figure 3 trade-off would be an upper bound.
  • The solvency condition is transfer-agnostic, so the same threshold applies to a negative income tax, a sovereign wealth dividend, or a refundable credit; the paper's UBI framing is illustrative rather than restrictive.
  • The leakage-parameter extension in the limitations section implies that tax-based capture may underperform ownership-based capture in economies with strong tax avoidance, since $\phi<1$ scales the threshold by $\phi^{-\sigma}$; cross-country comparisons could flip under realistic leakage.
  • A direct empirical test is available: build a task-level index of AI productivity relative to pre-AI automation and compare it with the calibrated threshold; sustained values of $\gamma_t$ below $\gamma^\star_t$ while transfers are funded would contradict the necessity claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends a Solow-Zeira task-automation model with a CES aggregator and an exogenous AI capability parameter γ_t that raises productivity on a fixed set of automated tasks. It derives a closed-form capability threshold γ*_t required for a constant transfer B to be financed from publicly captured capital rents, calibrates the model to U.S. data, and concludes that an 11%-of-GDP UBI is fundable once AI reaches roughly 5–7 times pre-AI automation productivity. Additional propositions analyze how public capture share Θ, operating cost share c, and market structure (Cournot oligopoly) shift this threshold. The paper presents comparative statics, simulations, and a Colab notebook, and explicitly positions the exercise as a worst-case, no-new-jobs stress test rather than a forecast.

Significance. If the model and calibration were sound, the paper would provide a transparent, analytically tractable benchmark for a widely discussed policy question, with the notable strengths of a closed-form threshold, explicit comparative statics, reproducible code, and a clearly stated worst-case scope. The central quantitative claim, however, is not supported by the model's own accounting identities: under the paper's headline calibration the required capital income share exceeds 1, so the proposed transfer cannot be financed in any competitive equilibrium of the model. The framework may still be a useful starting point after correcting this feasibility constraint, but the current numerical and policy conclusions do not follow.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Proposition 1; §4.1, Figure 1] The threshold formula in Proposition 1 omits the necessary feasibility condition R_t = r_t K_t / Y_t ≤ 1. Because the production function in Eq. (3) is CRS in K and L, Euler's theorem implies the capital income share is strictly less than 1 whenever labor is paid a positive wage. Setting B/Y_t = Θ(1-c) R(γ_t) therefore requires R* = (B/Y_t)/(Θ(1-c)) ≤ 1. With the paper's calibration B/Y = 0.11, Θ = 0.145, the maximum feasible transfer share is Θ(1-c) = 7.25% when c = 0.5 and 5.8% when c = 0.6. The thresholds reported in Figure 1 (5–7×) and Figure 3 (the c = 0.50 'low cost' curve) are computed in the region R* = 1.52 and R* = 1.90 respectively, where no positive-wage equilibrium exists. The correct statement at these cost estimates is that no AI capability level can finance the 11% transfer; only the c ≈ 0.2 lower bound yields a feasible threshold. The proposition should state B/Y ≤ Θ(1-c) as a necessary condition, and the headline calibration must be re-evaluated under it.
  2. [§3, Proposition 2; §4.2, Figure 2] The government budget in Proposition 2 mis-specifies the capture of pure profit. The text says the government captures all pure profit in addition to rents on its ownership share Θ, but the formula Θ(1-c)[R(γ_t) + θ/ε]Y_t multiplies the pure-profit term by Θ(1-c) as well. If pure profit is fully captured, the term θ/ε should enter additively (or the model must state that pure profit is also subject to the same capture and cost fractions). In addition, the formula for γ*_oligo,t can become undefined or negative when θ/ε exceeds B/Y_t minus the rental term; with ε = 1 and θ = 1 the profit share is 100% of output, which is incompatible with positive labor income. The conclusion that imperfect competition lowers the threshold therefore needs a re-derivation with explicit feasibility conditions.
  3. [§2.2 and §4.2–4.3] The analysis treats the AI capability trajectory γ_t as exogenous and invariant to the policy levers Θ, c, and market structure. This is a strong assumption: if raising the public capture share, increasing regulatory costs, or intensifying competition reduces private incentives to invest in AI capability, then the same policy that lowers the required threshold also lowers the realized γ_t. The paper's central policy trade-off (e.g., Figure 3) is therefore conditional on a supply of capability that is unaffected by the very policies being recommended. This should be stated as a hard limitation, and the robustness of the qualitative conclusions to endogenous γ_t should be discussed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, Corollary 1] The sentence 'a one-percentage-point increase in Θ lowers the required capability γ* one-for-one' is imprecise. The elasticity is ∂ln γ*/∂ln Θ = -σ, so a one-percentage-point increase on a base of Θ = 0.145 is a roughly 6.9% relative increase and lowers γ* by only about σ × 6.9% ≈ 4.5% at σ = 0.66.
  2. [§3, Proposition 1 proof] The proof substitutes the steady-state capital-output ratio arκ = s/(e^g - 1 + δ) into the threshold while also claiming the transfer is solvent 'for all t' along the convergent path. Since K_t/Y_t differs from arκ during transition, the threshold is period-specific unless the proof explicitly holds K/Y at its steady-state value throughout; this should be clarified.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 1 caption] The figure caption labels thresholds for σ = 0.45, 0.66, and 0.87, but the legend in the printed figure is not legible and the formulas in the caption contain typographical artifacts (e.g., missing symbols around arα and A_t). The figure should be cleaned up for publication.
  4. [§2.2] The notation 'γ_t ∈ R≥1' should be typeset as γ_t ∈ ℝ_≥1, and the surrounding text repeats 'AI' excessively; minor editing would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the capability threshold is an explicit algebraic inversion of the model's budget-balance condition, with parameters calibrated from external data, not fitted to the predicted quantity.

full rationale

Proposition 1 defines gamma_star as the solution to the government budget condition B/Y_t = Theta(1-c)R(gamma_t), and the paper then solves algebraically for gamma_star. This is a threshold by construction, but the paper does not present it as an empirical prediction of realized AI capability; it is a conditional feasibility statement. The numerical 5-7x figure is obtained by substituting externally calibrated U.S. quantities (GDP, corporate tax rate, cost shares, elasticity of substitution, capital-output ratio) into the closed form. None of these parameters is fitted to AI capability data, and the paper does not claim to have observed gamma_t at or above gamma_star. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the references to Zeira, Acemoglu-Restrepo, Aghion-Jones-Jones, and other prior work are standard external models, and no uniqueness theorem from the author's own prior work is invoked. The derivation is therefore self-contained: given the model and calibration, the threshold follows by algebra. Separate feasibility concerns, such as whether the calibrated parameters imply an impossible capital income share greater than one, are correctness risks rather than circularity, and do not change this assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central threshold rests on a long list of calibrated inputs and strong structural assumptions: a fixed task set, exogenous saving, uniform task allocation, non-distortionary capture, and an exogenous capability trajectory. The theorem itself is a conditional statement conditional on all of these.

free parameters (9)
  • σ (elasticity of substitution) = 0.66 (midpoint of [0.45, 0.87])
    Chosen as arithmetic midpoint of Knoblach et al. meta-analysis; exponent σ in threshold formula makes γ* sensitive to this choice.
  • ᾱ (automated task share) = 0.42
    Taken from WEF projection of business tasks automated by 2027; used as fixed structural share in CES aggregator although it is a survey forecast.
  • Θ (public capture share) = 0.145
    Midpoint of GAO effective federal corporate tax rate 13-16%; equated to government share of AI capital income.
  • c (operating cost share) = 0.50 (baseline), 0.75 (high cost)
    Between OpenAI's alignment lower bound (0.2) and Sacra's implied gross-margin cost (about 0.6); the 5-7x headline uses the 0.50 baseline.
  • s (saving rate) = 0.22
    U.S. gross capital formation share of GDP from World Bank 2023; enters through steady-state capital-output ratio κ̄.
  • g (Hicks-neutral TFP growth) = 0.011
    CBO projection for nonfarm business TFP growth; shifts threshold downward over time.
  • δ (depreciation rate) = 0.056
    Ratio of BEA depreciation to net stock of private fixed assets, 2023.
  • ε (demand elasticity) = 1.0
    Midpoint of UK DSIT range [0.5, 1.5]; used in Proposition 2 to convert Lerner index into a profit share.
  • B/Y (UBI transfer ratio) = 0.11
    Chosen policy target: $12k per adult per year divided by 2024 U.S. GDP; not fitted, but a hand-set policy parameter.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Tasks are aggregated through a CES production function with elasticity σ<1 (ρ<0), so tasks are gross complements.
    Equation (1); this drives the Baumol cost-disease effect and the plateau in the automated sector's GDP share.
  • domain assumption Zeira knife-edge task technology: automated tasks use capital only, non-automated tasks use labor only.
    Section 2.1; this binary allocation is the standard task-automation abstraction.
  • domain assumption The automated-task share ᾱ is fixed and no new tasks or jobs are created.
    Section 2.1; this is the worst-case scenario that makes the threshold an upper bound.
  • domain assumption Capital and labor are allocated uniformly across automated and non-automated tasks.
    Section 2.1 after Eq. (1); needed for the closed-form aggregate production function.
  • domain assumption The saving rate s is exogenous and constant (Solow saving behavior).
    Section 2.2; the Ramsey extension is discussed but not used for the main closed form.
  • ad hoc to paper AI capability γ_t evolves exogenously and is unaffected by the policy levers Θ, c, or market structure.
    Section 2.2 and the policy simulations in Section 4; this assumption is load-bearing for the recommendation that raising Θ lowers the required γ*.
  • domain assumption The government can capture a share Θ of capital income and, in Proposition 2, all pure profits without creating distortions or changing firms' behavior.
    Propositions 1 and 2; no incentive or general-equilibrium feedback from taxation is modeled.
invented entities (1)
  • AI capability shifter γ_t
    purpose: Scales the productivity weight of automated tasks in the CES aggregator; the object whose threshold γ* is derived.
    γ_t is not directly measured; the paper sets γ_0=1 as a convention and defines the threshold relative to an unobserved 'pre-AI automation productivity' level, so the 5-7x figure has no external empirical handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Do AI Gains Become Broadly Shareable? A Policy Threshold for AI-Driven Automation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H53LM2WP

@misc{pith2026250518687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Do AI Gains Become Broadly Shareable? A Policy Threshold for AI-Driven Automation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H53LM2WP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18687}
}
read the original abstract

AI-driven automation generates broad-based social benefit only if technical gains become visible, durable, and publicly claimable. We develop a policy-facing stress test by extending a standard task-automation growth model with an AI capability parameter that raises productivity on automatable tasks while holding the set of tasks fixed. The exercise is intentionally limited: it is not a forecast of AI timelines or a full welfare analysis, but a way to identify which institutions determine whether AI rents can support broad transfers. Calibrated to U.S. quantities, the model shows that capability alone is not decisive. Public capture, deployment costs, automation scope, and market structure jointly determine when AI gains become shareable. The main policy lesson is that moving from low to moderate public capture (33\%) can substitute for substantial AI capability growth, while pushing capture further to full nationalization yields smaller gains, especially if deployment or safety costs are high. Competition policy also has distributional consequences: opening concentrated AI markets may improve fairness and resilience, but can reduce the rent pool unless alternative public-claim institutions are built. Cross-nationally, tax-heavy systems lower the needed AI capability threshold through stronger effective revenue collection, while Singaporean and Abu Dhabi-style public-asset models show that governments can also capture AI gains through ownership and investment returns rather than taxes alone. Our framework therefore identifies which levers governments can act on now to make future AI gains easier to measure, claim, and distribute broadly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected AI capabilities (γt) vs. time-varying UBI AI capability threshold (γ ⋆ t ). The black dashed line is the required capability γ ⋆ t to fully fund a UBI that comprises 11% of the GDP (leading to a γ ⋆ t between 5-7× the pre-AI productivity on automated tasks, under current economic assumptions). Solid black and grey dash-dotted lines are the UBI threshold for low and high elasticity values. Under fast scalin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Impact of competition on the required AI capability (γ ⋆ t ). Each curve traces the minimum capability γ ⋆ oligo,t (defined in Proposition 2) needed to fund a UBI at three evaluation horizons in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trade-off between public revenue share (Θ) and operating cost (c) on the capability threshold γ ⋆ t . The solid curves plot the 2025-base-year capability threshold required to fund an 11 %-of-GDP UBI when the public captures a share Θ of AI rents. Two operating-cost assumptions are shown: a low-cost regime (c = 0.50, blue) and a high-cost regime (c = 0.75, orange). The horizontal axis converts Θ to percentage points… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A contribution to the theory of economic growth

    Robert M Solow. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The quarterly journal of economics, 70 0 (1): 0 65--94, 1956

    work page 1956

  2. [2]

    Technical change and the aggregate production function

    Robert M Solow. Technical change and the aggregate production function. The review of Economics and Statistics, 39 0 (3): 0 312--320, 1957

    work page 1957

  3. [3]

    Workers, machines, and economic growth

    Joseph Zeira. Workers, machines, and economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113 0 (4): 0 1091--1117, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Intelligence explosion microeconomics

    Eliezer Yudkowsky. Intelligence explosion microeconomics. Machine Intelligence Research Institute, accessed online October, 23: 0 2015, 2013

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Artificial intelligence and economic growth, volume 23928

    Philippe Aghion, Benjamin F Jones, and Charles I Jones. Artificial intelligence and economic growth, volume 23928. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Explosive growth from ai automation: A review of the arguments

    Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu. Explosive growth from ai automation: A review of the arguments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11690, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis

    William J Baumol. Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. The American economic review, 57 0 (3): 0 415--426, 1967

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    Principles of mathematical analysis

    W Rudin. Principles of mathematical analysis. 1964

    work page 1964

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    The theory of industrial organization

    Jean Tirole. The theory of industrial organization. MIT press, 1988

    1988

  2. [10]

    Measuring ai ability to complete long tasks

    Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, et al. Measuring ai ability to complete long tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14499, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Data on machine learning hardware, 5 2025

    Epoch AI. Data on machine learning hardware, 5 2025. URL https://epochai.org/data/machine-learning-hardware

    2025

  4. [12]

    Machine learning trends, 1 2025

    Epoch AI . Machine learning trends, 1 2025. URL https://epoch.ai/trends#compute

    2025

  5. [13]

    Scaling laws for neural language models

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Why not ubi?, 9 2019

    UBI Center . Why not ubi?, 9 2019. URL https://www.ubicenter.org/what-is-ubi/why-not-ubi/

    2019

  7. [15]

    Bureau of Economic Analysis

    U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis . Gross domestic product, third quarter 2024 (advance estimate), 10 2024 a . URL https://www.bea.gov/news/2024/gross-domestic-product-third-quarter-2024-advance-estimate

    2024

  8. [16]

    Government Accountability Office

    U.S. Government Accountability Office . Corporate income tax: Effective rates before and after 2017 law change. Technical Report GAO-23-105384, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 12 2022. URL https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105384

    2017

  9. [17]

    Introducing superalignment, 12 2023

    OpenAI . Introducing superalignment, 12 2023. URL https://openai.com/index/introducing-superalignment/

    2023

  10. [18]

    Openai: Revenue, valuation & growth rate, 2025

    Sacra . Openai: Revenue, valuation & growth rate, 2025. URL https://sacra.com/c/openai/

    2025

  11. [19]

    Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages

    James Manyika, Susan Lund, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Woetzel, Parul Batra, Ryan Ko, and Saurabh Sanghvi. Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. Technical report, McKinsey Global Institute, 12 2017. URL https://www.mc...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Technical report, World Economic Forum, 4 2023

    The future of jobs report 2023. Technical report, World Economic Forum, 4 2023. URL https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/

    2023

  13. [21]

    The elasticity of substitution between capital and labour in the us economy: A meta-regression analysis

    Michael Knoblach, Martin Roessler, and Patrick Zwerschke. The elasticity of substitution between capital and labour in the us economy: A meta-regression analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 82 0 (1): 0 62--82, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Gross capital formation (\ URL https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.GDI.TOTL.ZS?locations=US

    World Bank . Gross capital formation (\ URL https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.GDI.TOTL.ZS?locations=US

  15. [23]

    Cbo's economic forecast: Understanding productivity growth

    Congressional Budget Office . Cbo's economic forecast: Understanding productivity growth. Technical Report 60515, Congressional Budget Office, 7 2024. URL https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60515

    2024

  16. [24]

    Bureau of Economic Analysis

    U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis . Current-cost depreciation of fixed assets: Private, 10 2024 b . URL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1PTOTL1ES000

    2024

  17. [25]

    Bureau of Economic Analysis

    U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis . Current-cost net stock of fixed assets: Private, 10 2024 c . URL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/K1PTOTL1ES000

    2024

  18. [26]

    Technical report, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 3 2023

    Uk artificial intelligence regulation impact assessment. Technical report, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 3 2023. URL https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6424208f3d885d000cdadddf/uk_ai_regulation_impact_assessment.pdf

    2023

  19. [27]

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey R. Raymond. Generative ai at work. Technical Report 31161, National Bureau of Economic Research, 4 2023. URL https://www.nber.org/papers/w31161

    2023

  20. [28]

    Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence

    Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381 0 (6654): 0 187--192, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.