Joules-to-GDP: How Much Economic Value Do AI Systems Produce per Unit of Energy?

Amirreza Zeinali; Jon Saad-Falcon; Avanika Narayan; Mersad Abbasi; Jonathan S. Hartley; John Hennessy; Christopher Re; Azalia Mirhoseini

arXiv · 2610.30858

Joules-to-GDP: How Much Economic Value Do AI Systems Produce per Unit of Energy?

Amirreza Zeinali·Jon Saad-Falcon·Avanika Narayan·Mersad Abbasi·Jonathan S. Hartley·John Hennessy·Christopher Re·Azalia Mirhoseini

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An AI system can produce more economically valuable work while delivering less value for the energy it consumes. We therefore ask: How much economic value does an AI system create per unit of energy consumed? We formalize economic value in two ways: (1) net dollar value, the output's dollar value minus AI-system execution cost, and (2) time saving, the expert's completion time minus the AI system's completion time. Dividing each by measured end-to-end energy yields Net Value per Joule (NVJ) and Time Saving per Joule (TSJ), reported in USD/MJ and hours/MJ. We study 220 public GDPval tasks across 44 occupations, serving five open-weight models locally and evaluating four accelerator types. First, the occupation groups where AI systems succeed most often, deliver the greatest dollar value, or save the most time do not necessarily provide the greatest economic return per joule. For example, among the tested tasks, engineering work delivers about 10% more net dollar value per task than software development. Yet software development delivers about 27% more net value per joule. Second, GLM 5.2 delivers the highest average net dollar value, at $72.27 per task using 0.430 MJ, equivalent in energy to about four hours of active laptop use. By contrast, Gemma 4 31B delivers 56% of that net dollar value using just 23% of the energy, achieving approximately 2.5 times the NVJ and 2.8 times the TSJ. Third, across four single-accelerator deployments, Qwen3.6-27B's NVJ varies by a factor of 4.32 and TSJ by 9.27, with B200 leading both. Additionally, one and eight H100s deliver similar net dollar value, but eight reduce completion time by 22% at 3.24 times the energy. Our framework makes output value and expert time saving under an energy budget explicit objectives for improving models, accelerators, and software, while offering a new basis for assessing AI's potential economic effect on occupational work.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG econ.GN q-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Amirreza Zeinali, Jon Saad-Falcon, Avanika Narayan, Mersad Abbasi, Jonathan S. Hartley, John Hennessy, Christopher Re, Azalia Mirhoseini. 2026-10-22. Joules-to-GDP: How Much Economic Value Do AI Systems Produce per Unit of Energy?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30858

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Are EEG Sequences Time Series? EEG Classification with Time Series Models and Joint Subject Training

As with most other data domains, EEG data analysis relies on rich domain-specific preprocessing. Beyond such preprocessing, machine learners would hope to deal with such data as with any other time series data. For EEG classification many models have been developed with layer types and architectures we typically do not see in time series classification. Furthermore, typically separate models for each individual subject are learned, not one model for all of them. In this paper, we systematically study the differences between EEG classification models and generic time series classification models. We describe three different model setups to deal with EEG data from different subjects, subject-specific models (most EEG literature), subject-agnostic models and subject-conditional models. In experiments on three datasets, we demonstrate that off-the-shelf time series classification models trained per subject perform close to EEG classification models, but that do not quite reach the performance of domain-specific modeling. Additionally, we combine time-series models with subject embeddings to train one joint subject-conditional classifier on all subjects. The resulting models are competitive with dedicated EEG models in 2 out of 3 datasets, even outperforming all EEG methods on one of them.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Fenchel-Young Generalization of Bayesian Principles

Conjugate Bayes plays a key role in machine learning, ensuring computationally simple posterior updates. We generalize the variational principle behind this computation by using the Fenchel-Young (FY) inequality, which lets us define a generalized evidence lower bound beyond the KL geometry, and at equality, characterizes new generalized posteriors. A generalized notion of conjugacy follows, defined as closure of prior-potential families that are affine under translation by the loss. We show that such families not only preserve additive canonical updating, but also posterior inference with parameter-dependent supports and tuneably heavy tails. This combination is not feasible with standard conjugate Bayes. We derive a new FY generalization of expectation maximization (EM), which recovers classical and Hard EM, and amortized versions. We show examples, including generalized Bayesian linear regression with closed-form bounded support and heavy-tailed posteriors, and a Gaussian mixture with sparse cluster assignments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Fragility-aware Classification for Risk Characterization and Robust Learning

Classification models play a central role in data-driven decision-making applications such as medical diagnosis, recommendation systems, and risk assessment. Traditional performance metrics, such as accuracy and AUC, quantify classification errors and pairwise ranking performance but do not account for the magnitude of errors, i.e., the risk of confident misjudgments. This limitation is particularly consequential in safety-critical and cost-sensitive settings, where overconfident errors can lead to severe outcomes. To address this issue, we propose the Fragility Index (FI), a novel performance metric that evaluates classifiers from a risk-averse perspective by capturing the tail risk of confident misjudgments. We formulate FI within a robust satisficing (RS) framework to quantify classifier sensitivity under distributional uncertainty. Building on this, we develop a tractable surrogate-based training framework and establish provable bounds connecting training fragility to ranking-error FI. We further derive tractable reformulations for a broad class of loss functions, including cross-entropy, hinge-type, and Lipschitz losses, and identify specific conditions under which these reformulations are exact. We also introduce an FI-induced regularizer for deep neural networks. Empirical results on real-world medical diagnosis tasks demonstrate that FI complements existing metrics by revealing error tail risk not reflected in accuracy or AUC. FI-based models achieve competitive predictive performance while generally attaining lower FI. In the simulated human--AI diagnostic workflow, they also achieve lower average operational costs than empirical risk minimization.

cs.LG↗