Performance Manipulation: Labor Market Implications in AI-assisted Era
TL;DR
This work establishes the existence of a symmetric, monotone pure-strategy equilibrium and shows that performance-based screening remains viable so long as evaluations retain a sufficient creative component, but collapses into an uninformative pooling equilibrium once AI capability grows large enough to crowd out creative effort.
Abstract
Performance manipulation arises when agents exploit easily measurable, routine tasks to inflate observable outcomes without contributing genuine innovation or expert judgment. We formalize this phenomenon in a game-theoretic model in which agents allocate effort along two margins. Creative effort is non-routine cognitive labor whose return is complementary to the agent's private expertise; it is the scarce input that principals seek. Mechanistic effort is the execution of well-defined, rule-based tasks that raise performance independently of expertise, a commoditized input that AI heavily augments. We establish the existence of a symmetric, monotone pure-strategy equilibrium and show that performance-based screening remains viable so long as evaluations retain a sufficient creative component, but collapses into an uninformative pooling equilibrium once AI capability grows large enough to crowd out creative effort. Comparing contest allocations against a single-agent baseline isolates performance manipulation as the competition-induced over-investment in mechanistic effort, which we show is undertaken systematically by low-type agents but not high-type ones. We further prove that more sharply skewed reward structures mitigate this friction by eliciting greater creative effort across the participant pool. Finally, using a novel, language-model-based methodology to measure both effort types from nearly 1,500 Kaggle competition scripts, we provide robust empirical support for the model's predictions.
