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

71–80 of 174 posts

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

#71

Post by ModernMech »

hendo3000 wrote: post #40

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.

> real innovation happening, but I find it's mostly companies cutting corners

There's a meme that I think fits: https://i.redd.it/20rpdamxef0f1.jpeg

I think for a long time, cutting corners so that the number can go up next quarter has worked surprisingly well. Genuinely, I don't think a lot of corporations view offering a better product as a viable means of competing in the 2025 marketplace.

For them, AI is not the next industrial revolution, it's the next overseas outsourcing; AI isn't a way to bring new value to customers, it's a way to bring roughly the same value (read worse) but at a much cheaper cost to them. If they get their way, everything will get worse, while they make more money. That's the value proposition at play here.

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

#72

Post by raincole »

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…

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

This is an eye-opening sentence. It's quite hard to imagine how to live one's daily life with "few questions to ask." Perhaps this is a neurodivergent thing?

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

#73

Post by reactordev »

addaon wrote: post #55
reactordev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I rarely have questions of others but I always question myself. There's only so many questions I have the ability to answer myself. Of those, there's only so many that I have the lifespan to answer myself. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and even on the shoulders of average people -- really it's shoulders all the way down. Unless the questioning itself is the source of joy (which it certainly sometimes is), I…

Absolutely, they usually tend to write about it...

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

#74

Post by poszlem »

alistairSH wrote: post #67
addaon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But do you need AI for those answers? I sometimes do the same thing, but Google/DDG/whatever works fine for most, and a niche app works for others (IDing a bird = Merlin app, for example).

Not the OP, but I ask way more questions now than I used to. Before, I’d sometimes wonder about things, but not enough to actually go and research them. Now, it’s as simple as asking the AI, and more often than not, I get a satisfying answer.

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

#75

Post by Culonavirus »

zero_shift wrote: post #54
Culonavirus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very much enough for drones tho... all you need is a tiny Jensen's chip, moped engine, some boom boom play-doh and you're ready to rock. No remote control needed.

Drones are expensive. Solid six figures expensive. And they are used around or on things that are even more expensive. You wouldn't want ChatGPT piloting them.

Under $50k for a Geran-2 level drone.

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

#77

Post by sceptic123 »

poszlem wrote: post #74
alistairSH wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you need AI for those answers? I sometimes do the same thing, but Google/DDG/whatever works fine for most, and a niche app works for others (IDing a bird = Merlin app, for example).

Not the OP, but I ask way more questions now than I used to. Before, I’d sometimes wonder about things, but not enough to actually go and research them. Now, it’s as simple as asking the AI, and more often than not, I get a satisfying answer.

Whether it's correct or not is another question

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

#78

Post by mikepurvis »

svara wrote: post #36
addaon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was going to say the same. It's probably so much healthier to make note of questions for later research than to stop right then and there and either a) fall down a Wikipedia rabbit hole or b) have an AI strapped to your face perform an info-dump.

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

#79

Post by Joel_Mckay »

whymauri wrote: post #63
grahar64 wrote: post #41

5% success is actually way higher than I thought it would be. At that rate I suppose there will be actually profitable AI companies with VC subsidies

5% success rate might mean: if you get it to work, you are capturing value that the other 95% are not. A lot of this must come down to execution. And there's a lot of snake oil out there at the execution layer.

"So you're telling me there's a chance"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

5% is not unexpected, as startup success rates are normally about 1:22 over 3 years. lol =3

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

#80

Post by addaon »

starik36 wrote: post #69
addaon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My walk is also around a reservoir, also 4-5 times a week and the length of the walk around it is also 1 hour. Are you the guy that walks the poodle?

Negative, just myself. I suspect I've mentioned my physical location on HN previously -- southern Utah.
Post reply on HN