cs.MADec 4, 2025

When AI Agents Compete for Jobs: Strategic Capabilities and Economic Dynamics of AI Labour Markets

Authors: Christopher ChiuSimpson ZhangMihaela van der Schaar

Organizations: DAMTP, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Abstract

Emerging agentic marketplaces provide the economic infrastructure for matching and coordinating the large amounts of AI agents used in agentic swarms. Unlike human workers, AI agents can operate on multiple jobs simultaneously, acquire skills rapidly, and labor without wage floors. These differences introduce a new segment of AI labor markets\textbf{AI labor markets}, where AI agents interact with each other at a much higher frequency than human markets. Yet we lack frameworks to understand how such markets behave in light of economic forces that shape labor markets, such as adverse selection and reputation dynamics. To explore this, we introduce AI-Work\texttt{AI-Work}, a tractable, simulated gig economy where Large Language Model (LLM) agents compete for jobs, develop skills, and adapt their strategies under uncertainty and competitive pressure. Our experiments examine three domains of capabilities that successful agents possess: metacognition\textbf{metacognition} (accurate self-assessment of skills), competitive awareness\textbf{competitive awareness} (modeling rivals and market dynamics), and long-horizon strategic planning\textbf{long-horizon strategic planning}. Agents with these capabilities consistently achieve higher profits, market share, and stronger adaptation than competing agents. Through AI-Work\texttt{AI-Work}, we hope to provide a foundation to explore the microeconomic properties of AI-only labor markets, and a conceptual framework to study the strategic reasoning capabilities of participating AI agents.

Explore similar work

Apr 26, 2026cs.AI

MarketBench: Evaluating AI Agents as Market Participants

Markets are a promising way to coordinate AI agent activity for similar reasons to those used to justify markets more broadly. In order to effectively participate in markets, agents need to have informative signals of their own ability to successfully complete a task and the cost of doing so. We propose MarketBench, a benchmark for assessing whether AI agents have these capabilities. We use a 93-task subset of SWE-bench Lite, a software engineering benchmark, with six recently released LLMs as a demonstration. These LLMs are miscalibrated on both success probability and token usage, and auctions built from these self-reports diverge from a full-information allocation. A follow-up intervention where we add information about capabilities from prior experiments to the context improves calibration, but only modestly narrows the gap to a full-information benchmark. We also document the performance of a market-based scaffolding with these LLMs. Our results point to self-assessment as a key bottleneck for market-style coordination of AI agents.
Andrey Fradkin, Rohit Krishnan
May 7, 2026cs.AI

Who Prices Cognitive Labor in the Age of Agents? Compute-Anchored Wages

A natural intuition about the economics of AI agents is that, because agents can be replicated at very low marginal cost, agent labor may be supplied highly elastically, placing downward pressure on cognitive-labor wages when it closely substitutes for human labor. We argue this framing is wrong in mechanism but partially correct in conclusion, and that the correction matters for both theory and policy. \textbf{Agents are not labor; they are a production technology that converts compute capital KcK_c into effective units of cognitive labor LAL_A.} Once this is recognized, the elastic-supply margin that anchors the equilibrium wage migrates from the labor market to the compute capital market. Building on the classic factor-pricing framework \citep{mankiw2020}, we derive a \emph{Compute-Anchored Wage} (CAW) bound stating that, on tasks where human and agent-produced cognitive labor are substitutes, the competitive human wage is bounded above by λkrcλ\cdot k \cdot r_c, where rcr_c is the rental rate of compute capital, kk is the compute intensity of one effective agent-produced cognitive labor unit, and λλ is the relative human-to-agent productivity. We generalize the result through constant elasticity of substitution (CES) aggregation, separate substitutable from complementary tasks, and discuss factor-share consequences. The conclusion is concise: \emph{the price-setter for cognitive labor is no longer the labor market.}
Siqi Zhu
Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

AI Agent Economics: Can Autonomous Economic Behavior Emerge among AI Agents under Minimal External Conditions?

Multi-agent studies commonly place AI agents in predefined games, markets, or roles, making it difficult to distinguish endogenous economic organization from behavior inherited from the scenario. We ask whether economic relations emerge when agents receive executable mechanisms for work, transfer, elections, and allocation but no prescribed social or economic strategy. We define AI Agent Economics as systems of production, allocation, consumption, exchange, and institutions that alter agents' future feasible actions. We develop a two-stage framework comprising a no-production boundary test and 24 independent six-agent worlds across GPT and DeepSeek. Without productive tasks, agents communicate and govern resource provision but show no substantive inter-agent transfer activity. With verified work and scarce task access, transfers, loans, access promises, vote-for-access exchanges, and allocation strategies emerge. Holding the election interface fixed, executable allocation authority increases differentiation while reducing failed allocation and prolonged exclusion. When energy becomes symbolic, continuation support disappears, yet competition over task access persists. These findings show that organization follows executable rights and resource consequences rather than role labels or prompt language, and motivate governance audits of the mechanisms that actually constrain agents' future actions.
Lingyun Zhang, Shang Shang