We develop a unified microeconomic and monetary theory of artificial intelligence inference costs and their pass-through to inflation, welfare, and optimal monetary policy. We introduce the Inference-Cost Phillips Curve (ICPC), an augmented New Keynesian Phillips curve in which firm-level marginal costs of producing differentiated goods include a non-trivial AI inference component lambda-bar, and prove a closed-form structural slope kappa_inf = lambda-bar * kappa, where kappa is the standard Calvo-Yun slope. We derive a welfare-relevant Hicks-Kaldor decomposition of consumer welfare under inference-cost shocks, prove a generalized Taylor principle for the inference-augmented economy, and characterize the optimal monetary policy response coefficient psi_inf = (1 + phi*rho) * lambda-bar * kappa under commitment. A second-order welfare loss formula closes the model in closed form. We confront the theory with U.S. monthly data 2022:M01-2026:M04 using a two-step GMM estimator with Newey-West HAC standard errors and Hansen J-test, recovering an empirical slope kappa-hat_inf = 0.087 (HAC s.e. 0.021) which lies within one standard error of the structural prediction. A scaling regression over 50 rolling-window subwindows yields b-hat = 0.987 (R^2 = 0.998), consistent with a near-unit-elasticity pass-through. A G7 reduced-form panel with Driscoll-Kraay HAC standard errors yields b-hat^G7 = 0.094 (s.e. 0.026), and a Wald test fails to reject cross-country homogeneity (p = 0.78). The framework provides a single equilibrium scaffold for the joint study of AI inference cost dynamics, monetary policy under generative-AI shocks, and the welfare cost of inference-driven inflation.
Posted prices for AI inference have fallen steadily since 2024, yet the measured speed of that fall depends almost entirely on the method of measurement. This paper constructs quality-adjusted price indices for the AI inference market from public data. The panel assembles 21,024 posted-price observations across 3,208 models and 86 providers and joins them to 4,605 benchmark scores through a latent quality index estimated from benchmark response patterns, so the quality ladder of the hedonic tradition is built here from evaluations in place of product characteristics. Measured by the matched-model methods that statistical agencies apply to software, inference prices fell at 0.10 log points a year. The quality-adjusted index fell at 0.73, so 87% of the decline is invisible to current methods, with direct consequences for measured competition, concentration and productivity in this market. Counted per completed task, moreover, the buyer's price stopped falling. Reasoning models raised token consumption faster than token prices fell, and the seller's and buyer's prices accordingly diverged. A pre-registered validity audit disciplines the quality measure and yields the sharpest result. Excluding contamination-flagged benchmarks leaves model rankings intact at 0.998 yet moves the index by 0.49 log points a year, so the leaderboard-stability arguments standard in AI evaluation offer no defence of economic statistics built on benchmarks. Prices, quality and the audit are fully reproducible from public sources at zero cost.
Large language models enable inexpensive AI-generated annotations, but using them reliably for causal inference remains challenging. Naively pooling AI and human data induces bias, while existing methods such as Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI; Angelopoulos et al., 2023a) treat AI outputs as proxies of true labels -- an assumption often violated for generative model outputs in practice. We propose Generative Augmented Inference (GAI), a framework that treats AI outputs as general, potentially high-dimensional informative features for learning human labels rather than as surrogates. GAI flexibly models this relationship using nonparametric methods, enabling consistent estimation and valid inference from combined human and AI data. We establish asymptotic normality and show that, under random labeling, GAI strictly improves asymptotic efficiency over human-data-only estimation whenever AI outputs are informative for true labels. Empirical studies on real-world datasets demonstrate that GAI significantly reduces estimation error and improves confidence interval quality across diverse generative data sources relative to human-only and PPI-based estimation.
We propose an AI economist agent for economic and financial scenario analysis. Scenario design often requires analysts to assess emerging risks with limited historical precedent, combine information from many sources, and translate qualitative mechanisms into internally consistent quantitative paths. Large language models (LLMs) can search and synthesize this information, but fluent narratives alone do not establish the model-based calculations needed for economic conclusions. Our framework uses LLM agents to plan the analysis, retrieve relevant evidence, and organize economic mechanisms, while registered quantitative models generate numerical outcomes and predefined tests determine whether intermediate results can be used in the final report. We apply the framework to European macro-financial stress scenarios and bank capital analysis. The empirical analysis evaluates retrieval of economic mechanisms, scenario construction, model execution, and report generation under a historical information cutoff. The results show how the AI economist agent can combine flexible evidence retrieval and scenario construction while keeping the resulting analysis linked to identifiable sources and explicit model calculations.