From Shadow Adoption to Workflow Collapse: The Hidden Economics of AI

๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—ถ๐—ณ ๐˜„๐—ฒโ€™๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—”๐—œ (๐—š๐—ฃ๐—”๐—œ) ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜†?
โ€ข What if it isnโ€™t just another โ€œgeneral-purpose technologyโ€ like computing, but a bundle of many specific-purpose technologies out-of-the-box?
โ€ข And what if calling AI a โ€œcapital investmentโ€ is also a category errorโ€”when in reality it behaves more like inexpensive labour?

Yesterday at the Cost-Benefit Analysis Forum organised by the Economic Society of Australia (NSW), I offered a small technical perspective on the long-running productivity paradox. Many leading economists have addressed it far more deeply; my contribution was simply to show how GPAIโ€™s unique properties complicate familiar frameworksโ€”from project-level costโ€“benefit analysis to firm productivity and national accounts. Unlike electricity or computing, GPAI:
โ€ข delivers ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜-๐—ผ๐—ณ-๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ-๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜… ๐˜€๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ-๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† and even “๐—œ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ต๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€ (๐—œ๐— ๐—œ)”
โ€ข drives ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐˜„ ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป outside formal programs
โ€ข ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ธ๐—ณ๐—น๐—ผ๐˜„๐˜€ into single and longer steps
โ€ข blurs the line between labour and capital
โ€ข Usage and inference costsโ€”and even seemingly large capital investment in model trainingโ€”may be overestimated if divided by the many powerful specific-purpose capabilities

These shifts mean productivity gains are often misattributed, undercounted, or show up only as โ€œmysteriousโ€ residual uplifts, total factor productivity, or multifactor productivity.

I also shared how CSIRO’s Data61 approaches this challenge:
โ€ข Using impact evaluation frameworks designed for high-uncertainty R&D with delayed and diffuse benefits
โ€ข Developing new risk assessment methodologies and a science of measurement tailored for GPAI
โ€ข Applying AI itself to enhance costโ€“benefit analysis, from scoping and precedent extraction to tracing impacts, collating risk evidence, and synthesising reports

The day closed with a lively panel on whether AI can be trusted within costโ€“benefit analysis itself. The mix of economic, policy, and technical perspectives reinforced why I value multidisciplinary forumsโ€”they generate insights no single field can reach alone.

text-rich full slides https://gamma.app/docs/AI-Cost-Benefits-Analysis-CBA-bmch54uelzzzpy8


About Me


About me – According to AI

Director/Head of CSIRO’s Data61
Conjoint Professor, CSE UNSW

For other roles, see LinkedIn & Professional activities.

If you’d like to invite me to give a talk, please see here & email liming.zhu@data61.csiro.au

Featured Posts