Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2605.05578

Artificial Aesthetics: The Implicit Economics of Valuing AI-Generated Text

Abstract

Aesthetic qualities command measurable premiums in traditional goods markets. However, it remains unclear whether users are willing to pay for such qualities in AI-generated text. This paper estimates the willingness to pay for aesthetic attributes in large language model outputs using an online experiment with N = 117 participants. Participants evaluated responses from four anonymized models across academic, professional, and personal contexts, rated outputs along multiple dimensions, and submitted bids for access using a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) mechanism. We find no statistically significant relationship between perceived aesthetic quality and willingness to pay. While participants systematically distinguish between outputs and exhibit consistent preferences over stylistic features, these differences do not translate into higher monetary valuation. Further analysis shows that aesthetic and functional attributes load onto a single latent factor, suggesting that users perceive quality as a unified construct rather than a separable aesthetic dimension. These results imply that, in current large language model (LLM) markets, aesthetic improvements function as baseline expectations rather than sources of price differentiation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Arbaaz Karim. 2026-05-07. Artificial Aesthetics: The Implicit Economics of Valuing AI-Generated Text. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05578

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Local Media and the Shaping of Social Norms: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak

Media's influence on norms and behavior is widely recognized. Less is known about the role played by media being local. I examine this in a high-stakes context, the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. I exploit quasi-random variation in access to radio and the timing of a public-health campaign aired on community radio. I find that 12-17% of Ebola cases could have been prevented if places with access to a neighboring community radio station had instead had their own. Impacts are driven by radio being local rather than by ethno-linguistic belonging. Local media facilitates coordination in behaviors observed and sanctioned locally.

econ.GN

Productivity Shocks and Input Misallocation: A Decomposition

This paper asks how much input misallocation productivity uncertainty generates and at which stage of input decisions it arises. I separate revenue productivity by when each component is revealed and trace each into the gap between an input's marginal revenue product and its price. In six European countries, shocks revealed after an input is committed account for 20 percent of capital gap dispersion and 5 percent of labor gap dispersion. An unanticipated one percent rise in productivity raises the capital gap by 0.92 percent and the labor gap by 0.19 percent, because most of the shock passes into the wage.

econ.GN

When Do Type-Specific Wages Buffer Distributional Incidence in TANK?

When do relative wages buffer the unequal incidence of aggregate shocks? I derive a consumption-gap decomposition and a present-value condition for partial offset in a TANK model. An extension separates wage-setting demand elasticity from substitution between labor segments and allows each segment to contain both financial types. With a zero inherited wage gap and a same-sign discounted wedge, substitution above one gives offsetting earnings reallocation; substitution below one gives amplification. The channel disappears when financial types have identical segment exposure. Numerical experiments assess these mechanisms, shock persistence, policy feedback, and aggregate-IRF matching. In the nested perfect-alignment monetary benchmark, the peak consumption gap is about two-fifths smaller under type-specific wages than under the common-wage closure. These are conditional model comparisons, not empirical effect estimates or welfare rankings.

econ.GN