[xenophon]

The point is that if this article is correct about the assumption that AI is capable enough to reduce the friction of consumers rationally comparing options for a far wider basket of goods, then competition will reduce prices. No company wants to reduce prices if they don't have to -- their hand is forced by declining market share (or, with discounters, price reductions are a deliberate strategy to increase market share and absolute profit).

The bull case for AI and consumer welfare is 1) turning more markets into "perfect competition" like airline tickets, and 2) driving actual prices lower because the marginal cost of production is lower with less labor. Even if real inputs don't change, removing labor will reduce marginal cost (which implies that you'll see the largest price declines in labor-intensive industries).

[cal_dent]

but doesn't this implicitly assuming the reduction in labour cost and household income is like for like price reduction. When there's probably just as likely (& if not more) that the reduction in household income is lopsided so overall ability to purchase is reduced. You'll then need fewer people to buy more to make up for the loss of some buyers which is unlikely for many goods.

I do think the idea that AI is good for economic growth is for the fairies personally under the current model. I cant square the circle of a consumer based economic model will see higher growth by the apparently significant reduction in said consumers income.