Simulated multi-model ecosystems show oligopoly-like concentration barely changes where or how fast generative models collapse from recursive training; the decisive factor is whose text fills the shared corpus, and adding real human text slows but does not redirect the collapse.

Main Finding

Within the experimental range tested (open 1–4B models, pools up to K=13, 5 recursive generations), market concentration (an oligarch taking large share) does not meaningfully change where multi-model ecosystems collapse nor does it reliably speed collapse. Instead, the composition of the shared training pool — whose text fills it and how susceptible those sources are to being “carried along” — drives the pace of degradation. Human data in the pool slows collapse roughly proportionally to dose but does not change the eventual direction.

Key Points

• Concentration invariance: Varying market shares (equal split vs. a 28% oligarch in natural experiments; up to 90% in a stylized probe) and changing who holds the large share produce only tiny differences in five-generation endpoints. Between-arm separations at gen 5 are ≈2.6–3.2% of typical five-generation drift.
• Pull vs. fade: A dominant supplier can shift topic composition, but even an extreme oligarch + strong stylistic bias does not reliably “tow” the ecosystem. Topic-level pulls are visible but small relative to the overall geometric collapse (the fade). Example: two injected oligarch arms that start 14 units apart end 27 apart while each arm drifts 92 and 131 units — pull is small on the collapse metric.
• Collapse severity: Collapse is real and large. Encoder-free quality metrics show median perplexity rising from 97 → 699 over five generations (median 6.8× increase). Outputs also narrow (less lexical variety).
• Pool composition predicts speed: A single share-weighted susceptibility index (how readily each member is carried along, weighted by share) explains drift differences across 19 natural arms with R2 = 0.68 (leave-one-arm-out Q2 = 0.55). Swapping members with identical shares can change five-generation drift by ~2.8× (K=3 comparison).
• Human data mitigates pace but not direction: Replacing part of the pool with human text (25% or 50%) slows drift roughly proportionally (50% human ≈ ~1.8× slower across five generations) but does not steer the ecosystem to a different endpoint.
• Share knobs have small absolute effect: In the tested natural range, giving one model the oligarch’s share instead of an even split changes five-generation drift by <10%, and in some cases the equal-split arm decays faster.

Data & Methods

• Models: 13 off-the-shelf open language models (1–4B parameters) from 10 organizations used to form nested ecosystems with K ∈ {3,5,8,13}. An injected-probe set used K=3 with strong, mutually opposed stylistic biases; an exploratory 7–8B single-seed probe reported in appendix.
• Loop: Repeated 5 generations. Each generation: every model generates text (800 texts/model/gen), outputs are sampled into a shared fixed-size pool (2,100 items) according to preset market shares, each model is fine-tuned (full-parameter) from clean base weights on that pooled corpus, new models replace old ones. Weights never carry across generations — this isolates corpus contamination effects.
• Share treatments: Natural experiments compare uniform shares vs. a 28% oligarch (others split evenly); the injected probe sweeps top share from 45% to 90%. Player counts and head identity (which model holds the top slot) are varied.
• Human-data dosing: In K=13, pool compositions with 0%, 25%, 50% human data (subset of the Pile excluding strongly styled domains) were tested; some doses also tested at other K.
• Measurements:
  • Geometric measure: frozen encoder (DeBERTa) embeds pool text each generation; centroids compared via distance = 1 − cos (reported ×10^−3).
  • Encoder-free degradation metrics: perplexity, lexical diversity, etc., confirm collapse.
  • Topic classifier used for the injected probe to track topical pull.
• Key quantitative outcomes:
  • Between-arm separation at gen 5 ≈ 2.6% (in 1−cos units) of cohort drift (roughly 1/6 in linear distance).
  • Share-weighted susceptibility index predicts drift across arms with R2 = 0.68.
  • Median perplexity: 97 → 699 over five generations (median 6.8× increase).
  • Human data: 50% human roughly halves drift in the sense that gen-5 with 50% human ≈ gen-3 without human data.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market concentration ≠ steering risk for training drift (in this setting): Fears that a dominant provider’s outputs will strongly determine the stylistic or substantive direction of later models via recursive ingestion are not supported at the tested scale; the main systemic harm is homogenization and quality erosion (the fade), not an oligarchic towing.
• The externality of synthetic content is a composition problem: The primary externality is the aggregate composition of publicly available text. Economic models should treat synthetic-content pollution as a public-good/public-bad problem where "susceptibility" of content sources matters more than concentration per se.
• Policy levers:
  • Investing in or mandating high-quality human-curated corpora (or disclosure/labeling of synthetic content) can slow recursive degradation; replacing a substantial fraction of training pools with verified human data is effective at slowing, though not redirecting, collapse.
  • Incentives for models/companies to produce outputs that are less prone to being “carried along” (i.e., more robust/diverse, lower self-reinforcing style) could reduce systemic drift.
  • Monitoring and limiting synthetic content diffusion on public web resources could mitigate contamination of shared training corpora.
• Market-design and regulation focus: Regulatory concern about oligopoly dominance affecting the content of future models should be balanced with the finding that content composition matters more than share. Competition/antitrust policy still matters for pricing, access, innovation, and deployment monocultures, but additional attention should be paid to policies that preserve diverse, high-quality training sources.
• Research and forecasting suggestions:
  • Economic models of foundation-model ecosystems should incorporate a “susceptibility” parameter for content sources and model outputs, and consider externalities from recursive ingestion.
  • Empirical and policy-relevant follow-ups should test larger model scales, longer chains of generations, realistic real-world market shares, and cross-modal settings to verify whether concentration invariance holds at production scale.
• Caveats: Experiments used 1–4B models, fixed pool sizes, five generations, fully connected pools, and retraining from clean weights (isolating corpus effects). Results may not generalize to much larger models, longer recursion, or differing data-generation/cleaning pipelines used in industrial training. Further large-scale study is needed before broad regulatory conclusions.