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

111–120 of 174 posts

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

#111

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

It happens to me all the time, however, I want to have real answers. And while a LLM is sometimes involved, I usually go deeper, with some cross referencing, fact checking and primary sources. LLMs are great at giving you a starting point, but the problem with them is that it is impossible to distinguish between fact or fiction, so I always have to verify. Really, I have seen my fair share of falsehoods popping up on LLMs, sometimes on simple and uncontroversial topics.

On hot topics like politics, illegal drugs, gender and racial differences, etc... it may be impossible to even get an answer passed the filters.

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

#112

Post by antisthenes »

kubb wrote: post #38

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 h…

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

Isn't the idea that you're not a shitty human being enough in and of itself?

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

#113

Post by throwawaylaptop »

raincole wrote: post #72
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?

I always ponder how many people have a refrigerator in their home their entire life, and what percentage of them don't know how it works.

I've asked several gfs, and they don't have even a hint of how it works. Guy friends do a bit better but not as well as you'd think.

So yes, people live their entire lives not asking obvious questions.

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

#114

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

As a rule of thumb, airplanes subsystems are expected to have 99.99999% reliability, so the whole gets 99.9999%.

Airline airplanes are currently more than one order of magnitude better than this. But if you have that, you can claim your plane works.

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

#115

Post by WD-42 »

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 just finished implementing a chatbot in a box for a clients sass. What problem does it solve? None that I can tell, other than now the sass “has ai”.

I still have access to the OpenAI dashboard. I can confirm nobody is actually using it.

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

#117

Post by brobdingnagians »

WD-42 wrote: post #115
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 just finished implementing a chatbot in a box for a clients sass. What problem does it solve? None that I can tell, other than now the sass “has ai”. I still have access to the OpenAI dashboard. I can confirm nobody is actually using it.

We recently got a customer support request asking if we were going to "implement AI" on our website and then saying we could use it in our marketing if we did. No suggestion as to why they would find it useful, or what feature could be augmented with it. It's crazy that the hype is so high that random non-tech users suggest adding AI for marketing.

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

#118

Post by BobaFloutist »

WD-42 wrote: post #115
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 just finished implementing a chatbot in a box for a clients sass. What problem does it solve? None that I can tell, other than now the sass “has ai”. I still have access to the OpenAI dashboard. I can confirm nobody is actually using it.

Now the sass can sass you

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

#119

Post by YetAnotherNick »

michaelfm1211 wrote: post #20

> The data also reveals a misalignment in resource allocation. More than half of generative AI budgets are devoted to sales and marketing tools, yet MIT found the biggest ROI in back-office automation—eliminating business process outsourcing, cutting external agency costs, and streamlining operations. Makes sense. The people in charge of setting AI initiatives and policies are office people and managers who could be…

> MIT found the biggest ROI in back-office automation

Can't find any source to this, even after searching in Google. To me who knows bit of this, I don't find it very believable. Compared to humans, AI struggles in places where a fixed structure and process is required.

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

#120

Post by kubb »

antisthenes wrote: post #112
kubb wrote: post #38

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 h…

> Of course easier said than done. I can’t lie this convincingly, I don’t have the con man skillset or connections. Isn't the idea that you're not a shitty human being enough in and of itself?

I am. I'm working for a despicable company for money.

And an incompetent one at that. I can't grab a bag and leave.

Post reply on HN