Bigger AI models can backfire: when workers overestimate AI, increasing model scale can reduce joint productivity and hurt profits; firms should focus on aligning perceptions and incentives, not just buying larger models.

Main Finding

AI scaling (larger models / more compute) improves standalone model capability, but those technical gains do not automatically translate into better human–AI system performance. Whether scaling helps operational outcomes depends critically on how humans perceive AI capability. If humans over‑perceive the AI, increasing AI scale can reduce total system performance and firm profit — a "scaling paradox." If humans under‑perceive the AI, system performance still improves with scale but much more slowly. Firms can mitigate these distortions via operational policies (cost sharing and correcting perceptions), and in many cases improving the human–AI interface yields more value than further scaling the AI itself.

Key Points

• Integration of scaling laws into an operations model: the paper embeds a standard empirical scaling-law relationship (AI capability rises with scale) into a capacity-allocation model of human–AI collaboration.
• Human effort is endogenous and scarce: workers decide how much effort to allocate per project vs. how many projects to attempt; AI support changes that tradeoff.
• Human misperception is the critical behavioral mechanism:
  • Over‑perception (humans think AI is better than it is): workers withdraw effort too aggressively → may produce a non‑monotone relationship between AI scale and joint output (the scaling paradox). Firm profits can fall as scale increases in this region.
  • Under‑perception (humans think AI is worse than it is): workers over‑invest effort per project → scaling still helps but with attenuated gains.
• Asymmetry of distortion: over‑perception is more damaging for both system performance and firm profit than under‑perception. Under‑perception can sometimes partially correct firm–worker incentive misalignments.
• Firm-level effects and interventions:
  • Firms bear deployment costs of higher-scale AI; worker choices need not align with firm profit even under correct perceptions.
  • Two operational levers:
    • Cost internalization (shift some AI cost to workers): can curb over‑use and induce more worker effort per project. Optimal degree depends on AI cost and scale — full cost transfer may be optimal only when AI is cheap/small-scale.
    • Perception alignment (inform/educate/correct beliefs): especially valuable under over‑perception to prevent excessive effort withdrawal. Under‑perception alignment may not always raise firm profit because higher worker effort can conflict with firm incentives to scale throughput.
• Managerial implication: investing in correcting perceptions and designing incentives/operational rules can be more valuable than simply increasing AI scale.

Data & Methods

• Approach: analytic / theoretical modeling (no novel empirical dataset).
• Model primitives:
  • AI capability parameterized as a function of scale s via a scaling-law form (scale → improved success probability with factor α).
  • Sequential human–AI workflow: human initializes, AI attempts task, human reviews/corrects as needed.
  • Human has finite effort capacity and allocates effort across projects (effort per project trades off success probability vs. throughput).
  • Human perception modeled as a (potentially biased) belief about AI capability (over‑ or under‑perception).
  • Firm incurs per‑project AI deployment cost that increases with scale; firm profit aggregates successful project value minus deployment cost.
• Analysis: closed‑form comparative statics and qualitative characterization of when joint performance and profit are monotone in scale versus when non‑monotone (scaling paradox) arises; evaluation of two policy levers (cost sharing and perception alignment) and their effects under different misperception regimes.
• Assumptions/limits: stylized sequential collaboration, representative worker decision (no heterogeneity), static setting (no learning dynamics modeled), analytic emphasis rather than calibrated empirical estimates.

Implications for AI Economics

• Rethink ROI of scaling: macro or firm-level predictions that extrapolate model-level scaling laws to productivity gains risk overestimating returns unless they account for human behavioral responses and incentive structures.
• Behavioral frictions matter for capital allocation: firms should measure and manage worker beliefs and effort allocation when deciding whether to invest in larger models versus complementary organizational changes.
• Asymmetric risk management: prioritize detecting and correcting over‑perception (automation bias) because its welfare and profit harms are larger and can reverse the benefits of scale.
• Policy and contracting levers:
  • Incentive design (cost sharing, bonuses, monitoring) can reshape worker effort and throughput; optimal design depends on AI cost and scale.
  • Information interventions (training, transparent performance feedback, calibrated confidence displays) can align perceptions — especially important when over‑perception is present.
• For economists modeling AI-driven productivity effects: incorporate human perception and endogenous effort allocation into growth/productivity models and empirical identification strategies (e.g., measure perceived vs. actual AI accuracy, track effort allocation, run randomized information or cost treatments).
• Operational recommendation for firms and policymakers: pilot deployments should jointly experiment with scale, cost‑sharing, and perception alignment (A/B test information treatments and pricing of AI usage) to find combinations that convert technical capability into realized productivity.

Brief caveats: results are from a stylized analytic model. Empirical validation across tasks, worker populations, and dynamic learning/adaptation is needed; heterogeneity and longer‑run learning could moderate or amplify the effects identified.