mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Pricing and Competition for Generative AI

arXiv 2411.02661 ↗First posted 4 Nov 2024cs.GT cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Compared to classical machine learning (ML) models, generative models offer a new usage paradigm where (i) a single model can be used for many different tasks out-of-the-box; (ii) users interact with this model over a series of natural language prompts; and (iii) the model is ideally evaluated on binary user satisfaction with respect to model outputs. Given these characteristics, we explore the problem of how developers of new generative AI software can release and price their technology. We first develop a comparison of two different models for a specific task with respect to user cost-effectiveness. We then model the pricing problem of generative AI software as a game between two different companies who sequentially release their models before users choose their preferred model for each task. Here, the price optimization problem becomes piecewise continuous where the companies must choose a subset of the tasks on which to be cost-effective and forgo revenue for the remaining tasks. In particular, we reveal the value of market information by showing that a company who deploys later after knowing their competitor's price can always secure cost-effectiveness on at least one task, whereas the company who is the first-to-market must price their model in a way that incentivizes higher prices from the latecomer in order to gain revenue. Most importantly, we find that if the different tasks are sufficiently similar, the first-to-market model may become cost-ineffective on all tasks regardless of how this technology is priced.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Nov 2024.

Builds on

21 of 44 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,320
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,072
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,376
  4. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,916
  5. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,876
  6. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,494
  7. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,657
  8. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,691
  9. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,229
  10. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,163
  11. 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 395
  12. 2024Playground v2.5: Three Insights towards Enhancing Aesthetic Quality in Text-to-Image Generationcited by 250
9 more
  1. 2024PIVOT: Iterative Visual Prompting Elicits Actionable Knowledge for VLMscited by 187
  2. 2023GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Modelscited by 176
  3. 2022Ask Me Anything: A simple strategy for prompting language modelscited by 155
  4. 2021Reduced, Reused and Recycled: The Life of a Dataset in Machine Learning Researchcited by 101
  5. 2018Model-based Pricing for Machine Learning in a Data Marketplacecited by 37
  6. 2024Can Large Vision-Language Models Correct Semantic Grounding Errors By Themselves?cited by 20
  7. 2021Data Pricing in Machine Learning Pipelinescited by 17
  8. 2022Optimizing Data Collection for Machine Learningcited by 15
  9. 2023Human-AI Interactions and Societal Pitfallscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 2.

8 papers.