arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2604.00468

When AI Improves Answers but Slows Knowledge Creation: Matching and Dynamic Knowledge Creation in Digital Public Goods

Abstract

Generative AI helps users solve problems more efficiently, but without leaving a public trace. Fewer discussions and solutions reach public platforms, and the archives that future problem-solvers depend on can shrink. We build a dynamic model of public good provision where agents contribute by solving problems that other agents posted on a public platform, and the accumulated solutions form a depreciating public archive. AI reduces archive creation through two margins that require different instruments. The flow margin: the posted volume of knowledge-enhancing queries declines as AI resolves more problems privately before they reach the platform. The resolution margin: the probability that posted queries are resolved declines as AI raises contributors' outside options, thinning the contributor pool and creating congestion on the platform. The two margins interact through a self-undermining feedback that can generate low-archive traps. The decomposition yields a diagnostic prediction: in the congested regime, a joint decline in posted volume and conditional resolution requires that supply-side pool thinning is quantitatively present, whereas volume decline with stable or rising resolution indicates that private diversion alone is the dominant force. Encouraging public sharing of AI-assisted solutions offsets the decline associated with private diversion but cannot repair participation-driven deterioration in conditional resolution, which requires maintaining contributor engagement directly.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Keh-Kuan Sun. 2026-04-01. When AI Improves Answers but Slows Knowledge Creation: Matching and Dynamic Knowledge Creation in Digital Public Goods. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00468

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN