Modeling LLMs as a distinct form of capital shows that competitive dynamics intensify as firms race to improve relative capability, cheaper inference paradoxically increases aggregate compute demand, and user-feedback data flywheels can push markets toward winner-takes-all outcomes.

Main Finding

The paper develops a micro-founded dynamic model treating large language models as a new asset class—Digital Intelligence Capital (KAI)—and shows three structural implications for the AI economy: - Endogenous economic depreciation (the Red Queen Effect): firms must continuously invest to maintain relative capability because rivals’ innovations reduce the economic value of existing models. - A Structural Jevons Paradox: falling inference prices induce downstream agents to adopt more compute‑intensive architectures (deeper loops, larger contexts, tool use), making aggregate compute demand super‑elastic so efficiency gains raise total compute consumption and industry revenue. - A Data Flywheel and endogenous winner‑takes‑all: usage generates proprietary feedback data that, if accumulation outpaces decay, destabilizes symmetric competition and bifurcates the market into concentrated equilibria. The paper also formalizes a Wrapper Trap where expanding upstream capability can erode downstream application value.

Key Points

• Digital Intelligence Capital (KAI)
  • Defined as a non‑rival, partially excludable, irreversible stock of general cognitive capability (weights).
  • Monetized upstream via inference/API tokens Qi subject to physical throughput constraints.
• Production / accumulation
  • Law of motion: K̇AI,i(t) = F(Ci, Deff,i) − δi(t) KAI,i(t)
  • Gross production function (augmented CES, micro‑founded by neural scaling laws): F = Ai(t) · [α Ci^ϱ + (1−α) Deff,i^ϱ]^(γ/ϱ)
    • ϱ < 0 (complements): authors set ϱ = −0.2 → elasticity σ = 1/(1−ϱ) ≈ 0.83.
    • γ > 1 (increasing returns in economic utility): calibrated γ = 1.3 to capture emergent capabilities.
  • Ai(t) = ¯A(t) · ξ(Ri) where ¯A(t) is an exogenous technological frontier growing at rate gA.
• Relative value and endogenous obsolescence
  • Shadow price qi of a firm’s KAI is decreasing in rivals’ KAI: ∂qi/∂KAI,j < 0 for j ≠ i.
  • Innovation by one firm pecuniarily depreciates rivals’ capital → persistent innovation tax / Red Queen pressure.
• Downstream sector
  • Continuum of specialized agent developers with Orchestration Capital Oj (middleware, prompts, domain context).
  • Downstream firms choose architecture complexity that changes token usage via a token multiplier; lower API prices → more compute‑intensive designs.
• Structural Jevons Paradox
  • Architectural response to cheaper inference makes aggregate compute demand super‑elastic (total usage increases more than proportionally as price falls).
• Data Flywheel
  • Superior models attract usage → proprietary feedback improves Deff → reinforces superiority.
  • If data learning efficiency exceeds a critical threshold relative to data decay, symmetric oligopoly is dynamically unstable and market concentration (winner‑take‑all) emerges endogenously.
• Wrapper Trap
  • As upstream capability expands, it may substitute for downstream orchestration, eroding application‑layer rents.
• Empirics / simulation
  • A calibrated agent‑based model replicates the analytical mechanisms (Red Queen depreciation, super‑elastic demand, flywheel threshold, wrapper outcomes) without adding new mechanisms.

Data & Methods

• Theoretical framework
  • Continuous‑time, vertically structured model with:
    • Upstream oligopoly (finite N) producing KAI, setting API prices, investing in compute and data.
    • Downstream continuum of monopolistically competitive agent developers investing in Orchestration Capital Oj and choosing architectures.
  • Small open economy: exogenous risk‑free rate r; perfect information and rational expectations.
  • Explicit modeling of technological frontier ¯A(t) and firm absorptive capacity ξ(Ri).
  • Microfoundations drawn from neural scaling laws (loss as function of compute and data) to justify complementarity (ϱ < 0) and the mapping from loss to economic utility (γ > 1).
• Analytical results
  • Formal derivation of endogenous depreciation, super‑elastic demand conditions, and bifurcation condition for data flywheel instability.
• Numerical methods
  • Calibrated agent‑based model to explore global dynamics beyond local equilibria; parameter choices include ϱ = −0.2 and γ = 1.3 (others calibrated to scaling law evidence and industry magnitudes).
  • Simulations confirm the qualitative and quantitative implications of the theory and examine long‑run viability of downstream applications.

Implications for AI Economics

• Competition and investment
  • Persistent Red Queen effect implies continuous, high‑stakes R&D investment is endogenous—explains rapid obsolescence and the high pace of model updates even for market leaders.
  • Market leadership instability: pausing innovation leads to swift economic depreciation.
• Market structure and policy
  • Data‑driven concentration can arise mechanically from production technology (not only from strategic conduct), complicating traditional antitrust analysis.
  • Remedies that only focus on pricing or entry may miss structural data feedbacks; policies on data access/sharing, API interoperability, or mandatory model audits can alter flywheel dynamics.
• Compute demand and externalities
  • Structural Jevons means efficiency improvements (lower inference costs) can increase total compute use and energy/resource demand—implications for capacity planning, chip supply, and environmental policy.
  • Industry revenue may rise with efficiency, creating perverse incentives against reducing aggregate compute footprint.
• Downstream ecosystem
  • Wrapper Trap warns that expanding upstream capabilities can cannibalize downstream application value; this shapes strategic incentives for vertical integration and for downstream firms to lock in users via non‑data mechanisms.
  • Orchestration and differentiated data remain key possible moats for downstream firms, but these can be fragile if data feedbacks favor upstream consolidation.
• Research and measurement
  • Empirical work needed to estimate key primitives: data learning efficiency, data decay rates, the token multiplier from architectural choices, and the elasticity parameters (ϱ, γ).
  • Measurement of proprietary feedback loops and API capacity constraints will be important for forecasting concentration, compute demand, and social welfare impacts.
• Regulatory takeaways
  • Policies affecting data portability, model openness, and shared benchmarking could alter endogenous depreciation and flywheel thresholds.
  • Climate and resource policies should account for the super‑elastic demand response rather than assuming efficiency reduces total consumption.

Summary conclusion: Treating LLMs as Digital Intelligence Capital with data–compute complementarities, relative valuation, and capacity limits generates a unified explanation for rapid innovation races, rising aggregate compute despite lower unit costs, and endogenous concentration—pointing to novel areas for empirical work and policy intervention.