Firms should often 'pilot early, commit late': faster AI progress raises the value of experimentation and optionality while making irreversible deployment unattractive unless systems capture enough future improvement or pilots build transferable skills.

Main Finding

Firms facing a rapidly improving AI frontier optimally choose among three distinct options—immediate deployment, an early pilot, or waiting—and these choices respond differently to frontier uncertainty and progress. Fast frontier progress and greater uncertainty raise the value of optionality (waiting or piloting) even while they may not raise the value of irreversible deployment. As a result, rational behavior often looks like “pilot early, commit late”: firms experiment now to build organization-specific capability but defer irreversible, large-scale implementation until the frontier is observed or modularity is high enough.

Key Points

• Setup (intuitive): Two-period model. Current frontier m0; future frontier M (random, mean μM > m0). A firm has internal capability k0. Payoff from operating is A·k·m. Full deployment requires sunk cost I. Options at t=0:
  • Deploy: pay I, receive current operating value, gain production learning d, installed system captures fraction ρ ∈ [0,1] of future frontier improvement.
  • Wait: pay nothing now, observe M at t=1, deploy only if profitable.
  • Pilot: pay p now, gain pilot-specific capability ℓ, observe M at t=1 and then decide whether to deploy.
• Six central analytical results:
• Uncertainty effect (Proposition 1): The option values of waiting (W) and piloting (P) are convex in M, so mean-preserving increases in dispersion weakly raise W and P. Deployment value D is affine in M (given the model) and thus depends only on μM, not on dispersion. Hence uncertainty can shift the ranking toward options without changing expected frontier progress.
• AI waiting paradox (Proposition 2): A location shift (faster expected frontier progress) can increase the attractiveness of waiting or piloting more than immediate deployment when the installed architecture captures only a limited share (low ρ) of future improvements. Thus faster frontier progress can rationally delay full deployment.
• Pilot threshold (Proposition 3): A pilot dominates waiting iff its cost p is no larger than its expected incremental value to the future deployment decision: p ≤ p(ℓ) = δ E[ Δ(M; ℓ) ], where Δ(m; ℓ) = h_{k0+ℓ}(m) − h_{k0}(m) and h_k(m) = [A k m − I]_+. p(ℓ) increases with ℓ and with first-order stochastic improvements in M.
• Existence of “pilot early, commit late” region (Proposition 4): For sufficiently valuable transferable learning ℓ (and bounded p), piloting strictly dominates both waiting and immediate deployment. Pilots are not justified by uncertainty per se; they are justified when the capability they create raises expected future deployment value enough to exceed cost.
• Modularity threshold (Proposition 5): Deployment value is linear in ρ, so there is a closed-form critical ρ at which immediate deployment ties the best outside option V_o = max{P, W}: ρ = (V_o − D0) / [δ A (k0 + d) (μM − m0)], where D(ρ) = D0 + B ρ and B = δ A (k0 + d) (μM − m0). If ρ ≥ ρ*, deploy now; otherwise prefer the best outside option.
• Learning-channel substitution (Proposition 6): Marginal production learning d raises the value of deployment (∂D/∂d > 0), whereas marginal pilot learning ℓ raises the value of the pilot (∂P/∂ℓ ≥ 0). Whether “start small” helps depends on whether the learning transfers to the final deployed architecture.
• Competitive preemption is a simple extension: adding opportunity costs to waiting/piloting (c_W, c_P) reduces the outside option and lowers the modularity threshold ρ*, incentivizing earlier deployment.

Data & Methods

• Method: The paper is theoretical. It develops a reduced-form two-period real-options model with closed-form expressions for D(ρ), W, and P, derives analytical comparative statics and thresholds, and proves propositions (proofs in appendices).
  • Key equations:
  • Production surplus: Π(k, m) = A k m
  • Deployment value: D(ρ) = A k0 m0 − I + δ A (k0 + d) [ m0 + ρ (μM − m0) ]
  • Waiting value: W = δ E[ h_{k0}(M) ], h_k(m) = [A k m − I]_+
  • Pilot value: P = −p + δ E[ h_{k0+ℓ}(M) ]
  • Pilot incremental value: Δ(m; ℓ) = h_{k0+ℓ}(m) − h_{k0}(m)
  • Modularity threshold ρ* as above
• Extensions and validation: The paper includes numerical experiments (Section 5) to illustrate parameter sensitivity and non-monotonic behavior of ρ* under plausible parameterizations, and develops a continuous-time extension (Section 6) that recovers the standard real-options result that uncertainty raises the adoption threshold while capability and modularity lower it.
• Assumptions and simplifications to note:
  • Two-period baseline (continuous-time extension included).
  • Risk-neutral firm, no financing constraints, no strategic interaction (except the reduced-form preemption extension).
  • Linear surplus A k m (tractable but stylized).
  • Pilot modeled as learning without current operating cash flows (distinct from scaled production rollout).
  • ρ interpreted as the economic fraction of future frontier captured without re-sunk cost (a reduced-form measure of modularity/upgradeability).
• Empirical material: The paper is motivated by empirical patterns (AI Index, sectoral heterogeneity, task-level heterogeneous impacts) and cites recent empirical studies, but it does not use micro-level datasets to estimate parameters—rather it sets an agenda for empirical testing.

Implications for AI Economics

• Explains why widespread experimentation (pilots, proofs-of-concept) can coexist with slow full-scale rollout: rapid frontier progress and uncertainty increase the value of building transferable capability while preserving the option to adopt later.
• Policy and managerial implications:
  • Encourage modularity and upgradeable architectures (raise ρ): modular designs reduce obsolescence risk and lower the threshold for immediate deployment.
  • Support inexpensive, capability-building pilots (subsidies, shared evaluation platforms): lowering p or increasing the transferability ℓ makes pilots more attractive and accelerates organizational learning without locking firms into brittle systems.
  • Beware of conflating “start small” with “learn by doing”: measurement and design should distinguish pilot learning that transfers (ℓ) from production learning bound up with a brittle architecture (d & low ρ).
• Empirical implications / testable predictions:
  • Following a positive, exogenous frontier shock (e.g., major model release), firms with low modularity (low ρ / high vendor lock-in) should be more likely to delay full deployment and engage in pilots rather than commit, controlling for potential preemption pressures.
  • Greater ex ante uncertainty (dispersion of M) should be correlated with more experimentation activity (pilots) even if mean frontier expectations are unchanged.
  • Firms that report higher transferable learning from pilots (higher ℓ) should convert pilots into deployments sooner after frontier clarity than firms with pilots that produce mainly demonstration effects.
  • Industry-level heterogeneity: sectors or tasks where modular architectures (APIs, interchangeability, standard data formats) are common should see faster adoption at scale compared with sectors where implementations embed models deeply.
• Aggregate effects and welfare considerations:
  • Rapid frontier progress can increase social value of AI but, paradoxically, slow diffusion of full deployment—this dynamic complicates simple narratives that better technology always accelerates diffusion.
  • Policies aimed at standardization, modular interfaces, and lowering the cost of transferable pilots can both accelerate firm-level capability accumulation and mitigate socially inefficient delays.
• Measurement recommendations for researchers:
  • Distinguish deployment vs pilot activity in firm surveys and administrative data.
  • Measure modularity proxies (vendor lock-in, API use, frequency/cost of major reengineering) and learning transferability (whether pilot artifacts, pipelines, datasets, evaluation criteria are reused in production).
  • Use event studies around big model releases and cross-sectional heterogeneity in architecture/modularity to test the paper’s comparative statics.

Limitations to keep in mind: reduced-form linear payoff and two-period baseline, risk neutrality, no explicit strategic competition or multi-task substitution. The paper is most useful as a conceptual and analytical framework for interpreting firm behavior under rapid AI frontier movement and for guiding empirical work and policy design.