Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 174 posts

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#31

Post by Culonavirus »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #22

Nobody actually wants half the useless tools companies are coming up with because most of the solutions are not really novel. They are just wrapping an LLM. It's kinda like what I realized with the meta Ray-Bans: I can have these things on my face, they can tell me the answer to virtually any question in 10 seconds or less. But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask. When you walk in to your local grocery store…

> Because the customer wasn't the user - it was their boss and shareholders.

It's kinda funny that some online shops are now bragging how great their customer support is because they DON'T use LLM bots xD

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#32

Post by addaon »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #22

Nobody actually wants half the useless tools companies are coming up with because most of the solutions are not really novel. They are just wrapping an LLM. It's kinda like what I realized with the meta Ray-Bans: I can have these things on my face, they can tell me the answer to virtually any question in 10 seconds or less. But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask. When you walk in to your local grocery store…

> But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask.

Wow. This just does not match my personal experience. I do an hour or so walk around the reservoir near my house 4-5 times a week, letting my mind wander freely -- and I find that I stop on average at least five or ten times to take notes about questions to learn the answers to later, and occasionally decide that it's worth it to break pace to start learning the answer right then and there.

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#33

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

These seems like a glass-is-half-empty view.

5% are succeeding. People are trying AI for just about everything right now. 5% is pretty damn good, when AI clearly has a lot of room to get better.

The good models are quite expensive and slow. The fast & cheap models aren't that great - unless very specifically fine-tuned.

Will it get better enough so that that growth rate in success pilots grows from 5% - 25% in 5 years or 20? Who knows, but it almost certainly will grow.

It's hard to tell how much better the top foundation models will get over the next 5-10 years, but one thing that's certain is that the cost will go down substantially for the same quality over that time frame.

Not to mention all the new use cases people will keep trying over that timeline.

If in 10-years time, AI is succeeding in 2x as many use cases - that might not justify current valuations, but it will be a much better future - and necessary if we're planning on having ~25% of the population being retired / not working by then.

Without AI replacing a lot of jobs, we're gonna have a tough time retiring all the people we promised retirements to.

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#34

Post by mr_toad »

madcaptenor wrote: post #13
zahlman wrote: post #10

Am I the only one who looked at this shortened headline and wondered why anyone is allowing AIs to fly airplanes?

No. I also thought that even a 95% success rate wouldn't be good enough for airplanes.

I just assumed it was developed by Boeing.

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#35

Post by aprilthird2021 »

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #6

What's the failure rates if technology pilots in general for comparison? For example, I heard that SAP has an 80-90% deployment failure rate back in the day, but don't have a citable source for it.

That is not remotely true tbh. The company would have failed long ago if it were

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#36

Post by svara »

addaon wrote: post #32
agloe_dreams wrote: post #22

Nobody actually wants half the useless tools companies are coming up with because most of the solutions are not really novel. They are just wrapping an LLM. It's kinda like what I realized with the meta Ray-Bans: I can have these things on my face, they can tell me the answer to virtually any question in 10 seconds or less. But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask. When you walk in to your local grocery store…

> But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask. Wow. This just does not match my personal experience. I do an hour or so walk around the reservoir near my house 4-5 times a week, letting my mind wander freely -- and I find that I stop on average at least five or ten times to take notes about questions to learn the answers to later, and occasionally decide that it's worth it to break pace to start learning the answ…

I think not having those instant answers available is a big part of why your mind wanders in that setting.

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#37

Post by reactordev »

addaon wrote: post #32
agloe_dreams wrote: post #22

Nobody actually wants half the useless tools companies are coming up with because most of the solutions are not really novel. They are just wrapping an LLM. It's kinda like what I realized with the meta Ray-Bans: I can have these things on my face, they can tell me the answer to virtually any question in 10 seconds or less. But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask. When you walk in to your local grocery store…

> But I, as a human, rarely have questions to ask. Wow. This just does not match my personal experience. I do an hour or so walk around the reservoir near my house 4-5 times a week, letting my mind wander freely -- and I find that I stop on average at least five or ten times to take notes about questions to learn the answers to later, and occasionally decide that it's worth it to break pace to start learning the answ…

I rarely have questions of others but I always question myself. :shrug:

There’s a difference between asking out loud or another being vs asking yourself internally.

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#38

Post by kubb »

How much money can you pull out as a failed startup founder?

About a mil? Maybe two? Seems realistic…

People have to invent whatever seems reasonable while squinting given how much accumulation of capital there is.

The guys with money are easy to fool. Just lie to them about your „product”, get the cash, get out of the rat race, smooth sailing.

Of course easier said than done. I can’t lie this convincingly, I don’t have the con man skillset or connections.

So I’m stuck in a 9 to 5. Zzz…

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#39

Post by dylan604 »

zahlman wrote: post #10

Am I the only one who looked at this shortened headline and wondered why anyone is allowing AIs to fly airplanes?

Why not though? Current autopilot just attempts to keep plane on course/speed/altitude. Some can go further with auto-landing, but extreme emergency use only. I could see the airlines wanting to seek any fuel savings possible by possibly allowing AI to test slight changes to altitude/speed/course to conserve fuel based on some live inputs.

Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report

#40

Post by hendo3000 »

There was an article on HN about the valuations of AI being out of touch with the question; what problem is being solved?

We use generative imagery/video at my job and it's adding value. I see value being added for coders.

There's real innovation happening, but I find it's mostly companies cutting corners making customer service even shittier than it already was.

Post reply on HN