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

95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

thedailyadda.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 445 posts

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#111

Post by onlypassingthru »

vdupras wrote: post #59
eldenring wrote: post #29

This 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.

[flagged]

Wasn't half of Napoleon's army gone by the time he reached Moscow?[0] It's the sunk cost fallacy writ large with dead bodies, no?

[0]https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Napoleon-march-graphic-C...

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#113

Post by cube00 »

generic92034 wrote: post #81
jawns wrote: post #56

Full disclosure: I'm currently in a leadership role on an AI engineering team, so it's in my best interest for AI to be perceived as driving value. Here's a relatively straightforward application of AI that is set to save my company millions of dollars annually. We operate large call centers, and agents were previously spending 3-5 minutes after each call writing manual summaries of the calls. We recently switched to…

> It's not going to replace anyone's job. Is it not, in the scenario you are describing? You are saying the agents are free now to do higher-value work. Why were there not enough agents before, especially if higher-value work was not done?

It's such a useless platitude. The "higher value work" is answer more calls so we can have less staff on queue.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#114

Post by varispeed »

jawns wrote: post #56

Full disclosure: I'm currently in a leadership role on an AI engineering team, so it's in my best interest for AI to be perceived as driving value. Here's a relatively straightforward application of AI that is set to save my company millions of dollars annually. We operate large call centers, and agents were previously spending 3-5 minutes after each call writing manual summaries of the calls. We recently switched to…

What’s the actual business value of a “summary” though? A transcript is the record. A tag or structured note (“warranty claim,” “billing dispute,” “out of scope”) is actionable. But a free-form blob of prose? That’s just narrative garnish - which, if wrong or biased, is worse than useless.

Imagine a human agent or AI summarises: “Customer accepted proposed solution.” Did they? Or did they say “I’ll think about it”? Those aren’t the same thing, but in the dashboard they look identical. Summaries can erase nuance, hedge words, emotional tone, or the fact the customer hung up furious.

If you’re running a call centre, the question is: are you using this text to drive decisions, or is it just paperwork to make management feel like something is documented? Because “we saved millions on producing inaccurate metadata nobody really needs” isn’t quite the slam dunk it sounds like.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#115

Post by generic92034 »

highwaylights wrote: post #28
JCM9 wrote: post #16

We 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.

In Germany there is the additional issue of companies only really starting to invest into the hype when the hype cycle is already at its end, in other parts of the world. And do not imagine that would lower the investments or shorten the amount of time spent on the hype. The C level can never admit errors, the middle management only sees a way to promotion by following the hype.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#116

Post by rconti »

I'm no AI apologist, but for one, this is how investments, particularly speculative investments, work. They're investing money now in the _hopes_ of a future return. It's pretty early days still. Secondly, of _course_ the huge AI players are doing everything they can to overpromise and convince corporations to throw cash at them to keep the party going.

I think the real problem is, it's just a bit too early, but every CEO out there dreams of being lauded for their visionary take on AI, and nobody wants to miss the bus. It's high-leverage tech, so if it (some day) does what it's supposed to do, and you miss making the investment at the right time, you're done.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#117

Post by beepbooptheory »

lenerdenator wrote: post #55
highwaylights wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I also wouldn't be surprised if bean counters were expecting a return in an unreasonable amount of time. "Hey, guys, listen, I know that this just completely torched decades of best practices in your field, but if you can't show me progress in a fiscal year, I have to turn it down." - some MBA somewhere, probably, trying and failing yet again to rub his two brain cells together for the first time since high school. J…

"Actually its good we aren't making money, this actually proves how revolutionary the technology is. You really need to think about adapting to our new timeline."

You really set yourself up with a nice glass house trying to make fun of the money guys when you are essentially just moving your own goal posts. It was annoying two (or three?) years ago when we were all talking about replacing doctors and lawyers, now it just cant help but feel like a parody of itself in some small way.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#118

Post by ryandrake »

jampa wrote: post #42

The biggest mistake people are making is treating AI as a product instead of a feature. While people are doing their work, they don't think, "Oh man, I am really excited to talk with AI today, and I can't wait to talk with a chatbot." People want to do their jobs without being too bored and overwhelmed, and that's where AI comes in. But of course, we cannot hype features; we sell products after all, so that's the sta…

I wouldn't even call it a feature. It's enabling technology. I've never once said "I would like AI in [some product]." I say: "I would like to be able to [do this task]." If the company adds that feature to a product, I'll buy it. I don't care if the company used AI, traditional algorithms, or sorcery to make the feature work--I just care that it does what I want it to do.

Too many companies are just trying to spoon AI into their product somehow, as if AI itself is a desired feature, and are forgetting to find an actual user problem for it to actually solve.

Re: 95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend

#120

Post by maerF0x0 »

If everyone does it, then no one gets an advantage, because all see a productivity boost.

If you do not do it, you get left behind and cannot compete in the marketplace.

I took a business systems administration course like 20 years ago, and they knew this was the case. As far as we can tell it's always been the case.

IT doesn't create massive moats/margins because price competition erodes the gap. And yet if you do not keep up you lose.

It's definitely a boon for humanity though, in the industries where technology applies things have been very obviously getting much cheaper over time.

(Most notably American housing has been very very resistant to technological change and productivity gains, a part of the story why housing has gone way up) - https://youtu.be/VfYp9qkUnt4?si=D-Jpmojtn7zV5E8T

Post reply on HN