From Token-Max to Outcome-Max: How You Use AI Determines Its Productivity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) models can perform increasingly complex tasks, yet greater AI usage does not necessarily translate into proportional productivity gains. We identify token-max as one source of this inefficiency: when token consumption is treated as productive effort, agents are encouraged to over-exert and expend computation beyond what is necessary. We instead propose outcome-max, which rewards independently verified task completion per unit cost and induces a principled stopping rule. Then, to study these objectives, we develop a three-level simulation framework spanning immediate interaction, long-run behavioral adaptation, and organizational collaboration. Across all three levels, outcome-max improves the efficiency of AI-assisted production while largely preserving verified task performance. To further align these incentives with outcome-max, we introduce OutcomeShare, an incentive mechanism. Theory and simulation show that OutcomeShare can induce participation while generating shared gains for employees, firms, and LLM providers. Together, our results suggest that AI productivity not only depends on model capability, but also on how to construct the objectives governing AI use.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
26 of 42 references.
References · 26
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,395
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 629
14 more
- 2024Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMscited by 570
- 2025GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learningcited by 542
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 515
- 2025Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Modelscited by 398
- 2023SOTOPIA: Interactive Evaluation for Social Intelligence in Language Agentscited by 367
- 2023Large Language Models Empowered Agent-based Modeling and Simulation: A Survey and Perspectivescited by 257
- 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 219
- 2025The Danger of Overthinking: Examining the Reasoning-Action Dilemma in Agentic Taskscited by 152
- 2023Generative agent-based modeling with actions grounded in physical, social, or digital space using Concordiacited by 126
- 2024When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysiscited by 106
- 2025Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivitycited by 101
- 2026SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wildcited by 43
- 2026Multi-Agent Systems Should be Treated as Principal-Agent Problemscited by 3
- 2026Contracting for LLM Delegation: Moral Hazard in Technology and Effort Choicecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.