Anyone have a link to the actual report?
95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
21–30 of 445 posts
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#22I blame bad prompts /s
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#23Sounds like 95% of companies are potential clients for my consulting services
Do you sell overpriced generative AI solutions, or do you consult them on how to pivot away from idiotic generative AI?
Can't tell if you're in on it, but he's implying this waste is no different than average for consulting
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#24Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#25The link to their referenced study doesn't seem to work? This is confusing.. it's directly saying AI is improving employee productivity, but that's not leading to more business profit... how does that happen?
Maybe they’re measuring productivity by flawed metrics. One could write 10x as much code, but that doesnt mean that will equate to more profit
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#26The link to their referenced study doesn't seem to work? This is confusing.. it's directly saying AI is improving employee productivity, but that's not leading to more business profit... how does that happen?
> AI is improving employee productivity, but that's not leading to more business profit... how does that happen?
One trivial way is that the increase of productivity is less than the added cost of the tools. Which suggests that (either due to their own pricing, or just mis-judgement) the AI companies are mis-pricing their tools. If the tool adds $5000 in productivity, it should be priced at $4999, eventually -- the AI companies have every motivation to capture nearly all of the value, but they need to leave something, even if just a penny, for the purchasing company to motivate adoption. If they're pricing at $5001, there's no motivation to use the tool at all; but of course at $4998 they're leaving money on the table. There's no stable equilibrium here where the purchasing companies end up with a /significant/ increase in (productivity - cost of that productivity), of course.
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#27Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#28We are entering the “Trough of disillusionment.” These hype cycles are very predictable. GPT-5 being panned as a disappointment after endless hype may go down as GenAI’s “jump the shark” moment. It’s all fun and games until the bean counters start asking for evidence of return on investment. GenAI folks better buckle up. Bumps ahead. The smart folks are already quietly preparing for a shift to ride the next hype wave…
I wouldn’t be surprised if 95% of companies knew this was a money pit but felt obligated to burn a pile of money on it so as not to hurt the stock price.
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#29This is how America ends up being ahead of the rest of world with every new technology breakthrough. They spend a lot of money, lose a lot of money, take risks, and then end up being too far for others to catch up.
Trying to claim victory against AI/US Companies this early is a dangerous move.
Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend
#30Why do I have a feeling that most of that $30B was spent on paying for consultants, most of which were also essentially making things up as they went along.
I don't know?
For some reason, I'm thinking most of the money went to either inferencing costs or NVidia.