IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2604.04906.html

How AI Aggregation Affects Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Daron Acemoglu
  • Tianyi Lin
  • Asuman Ozdaglar
  • James Siderius

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) changes social learning when aggregated outputs become training data for future predictions. To study this, we extend the DeGroot model by introducing an AI aggregator that trains on population beliefs and feeds synthesized signals back to agents. We define the learning gap as the deviation of long-run beliefs from the efficient benchmark, allowing us to capture how AI aggregation affects learning. Our main result identifies a threshold in the speed of updating: when the aggregator updates too quickly, there is no positive-measure set of training weights that robustly improves learning across a broad class of environments, whereas such weights exist when updating is sufficiently slow. We then compare global and local architectures. Local aggregators trained on proximate or topic-specific data robustly improve learning in all environments. Consequently, replacing specialized local aggregators with a single global aggregator worsens learning in at least one dimension of the state.

Suggested Citation

  • Daron Acemoglu & Tianyi Lin & Asuman Ozdaglar & James Siderius, 2026. "How AI Aggregation Affects Knowledge," Papers 2604.04906, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.04906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.04906
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Golub & Matthew O. Jackson, 2012. "How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best-Response Dynamics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1287-1338.
    2. Ilia Shumailov & Zakhar Shumaylov & Yiren Zhao & Nicolas Papernot & Ross Anderson & Yarin Gal, 2024. "AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data," Nature, Nature, vol. 631(8022), pages 755-759, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandro Sousa & Vincenzo Nicosia, 2022. "Quantifying ethnic segregation in cities through random walks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Nicole Tabasso, 2014. "Diffusion of Multiple Information," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0914, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
    3. Sergio Currarini & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandro Tavoni, 2016. "Network Economics and the Environment: Insights and Perspectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 159-189, September.
    4. Simpson Zhang & Mihaela van der Schaar, 2018. "Reputational Dynamics in Financial Networks During a Crisis," Working Papers 18-03, Office of Financial Research, US Department of the Treasury.
    5. Bernd (B.) Heidergott & Jia-Ping Huang & Ines (I.) Lindner, 2018. "Naive Learning in Social Networks with Random Communication," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-018/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Buechel, Berno & Klößner, Stefan & Meng, Fanyuan & Nassar, Anis, 2023. "Misinformation due to asymmetric information sharing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    7. Sam Tavassoli & Viroj Jienwatcharamongkhol & Pia Arenius, 2023. "Colocation of Entrepreneurs and New Firm Survival: Role of New Firm Founder’s Experiential Relatedness to Local Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(4), pages 1421-1459, July.
    8. Andrew Delios & Rosalie L. Tung & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2025. "How to intelligently embrace generative AI: the first guardrails for the use of GenAI in IB research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 56(4), pages 451-460, June.
    9. Mohamed Mostagir & James Siderius, 2023. "Social Inequality and the Spread of Misinformation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 968-995, February.
    10. Yann Algan & Quoc-Anh Do & Nicolò Dalvit & Alexis Le Chapelain & Yves Zenou, 2015. "How Social Networks Shape Our Beliefs: A Natural Experiment among Future French Politicians," Working Papers hal-03459820, HAL.
    11. Levy, Gilat & Razin, Ronny, 2018. "Information diffusion in networks with the Bayesian Peer Influence heuristic," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 262-270.
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/78vacv4udu92eq3fec89svm9uv is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Nguyen, Manh-Hung, 2026. "Epistemic Capital and Two-Trap Growth in the AI Era," TSE Working Papers 26-1722, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    14. Jadbabaie, Ali & Kakhbod, Ali, 2019. "Optimal contracting in networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1094-1153.
    15. Francesco Drago & Friederike Mengel & Christian Traxler, 2020. "Compliance Behavior in Networks: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 96-133, April.
    16. Bryan S. Graham, 2017. "An econometric model of network formation with degree heterogeneity," CeMMAP working papers 08/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    17. Liza Charroin, 2018. "Homophily, peer effects and dishonesty," Post-Print halshs-01993618, HAL.
    18. Gilat Levy & Inés Moreno de Barreda & Ronny Razin, 2022. "Persuasion with Correlation Neglect: A Full Manipulation Result," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 123-138, March.
    19. Arifovic, Jasmina & Eaton, B. Curtis & Walker, Graeme, 2015. "The coevolution of beliefs and networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 46-63.
    20. Andrea Galeotti & Benjamin Golub & Sanjeev Goyal & Rithvik Rao, 2021. "Discord and Harmony in Networks," Papers 2102.13309, arXiv.org.
    21. Hongshen Sun & Juanjuan Zhang, 2025. "From Model Choice to Model Belief: Establishing a New Measure for LLM-Based Research," Papers 2512.23184, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.04906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.