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

151–160 of 445 posts

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

#151

Post by spogbiper »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #136
spogbiper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am working on a project that uses LLM to pull certain pieces of information from semi-structured documents and then categorize/file them under the correct account. it's about 95% accurate and we haven't even begun to fine tune it. i expect it will require human in the loop checks for the foreseeable future, but even with a human approval of each item, its going to save the clerical staff hundreds of hours per year.…

How will you know in practice which 5% is wrong?

the system presents a summary that a human has to approve, with everything laid out to make that as easy as possible, links to all the sources etc

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

#152

Post by alooPotato »

dsr_ wrote: post #86
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…

Pro-tip: don't write the summary at all until you need it for evidence. Store the call audio at 24Kb/s Opus - that's 180KB per minute. After a year or whatever, delete the oldest audio. There, I've saved you more millions.

you want to be able to search over summaries so you need to generate them right away

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

#153

Post by morelandjs »

I’d have to guess that new startup founders are building leaner teams leading to slower burn rates and longer run ways. That has value. I think share skepticism is warranted is whether or not old behemoths can retrofit AI efficiency gains into their existing organizational structures.

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

#155

Post by crowcroft »

IMO 'Zero return' is really just saying that these companies never had a plan for their AI implementation in the first place, and so never had any idea what they were trying to achieve and measure in the first place.

The article does call out clear issues companies have with AI workflows etc. and those are likely real problems, but if you're saying *zero* return those aren't the root cause problems.

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

#157

Post by kjkjadksj »

spogbiper wrote: post #76
IgorPartola wrote: post #34

What are the actual use cases that can generate revenue or at least save costs today? I can think of: 1. Generate content to create online influence. This is at this point probably way oversaturated and I think more sophisticated models will not make it better. 2. Replace junior developers with Claude Code or similar. Only sort of works. After all, you can only babysit one of these at a time no matter how senior you…

I am working on a project that uses LLM to pull certain pieces of information from semi-structured documents and then categorize/file them under the correct account. it's about 95% accurate and we haven't even begun to fine tune it. i expect it will require human in the loop checks for the foreseeable future, but even with a human approval of each item, its going to save the clerical staff hundreds of hours per year.…

Isn’t that something you can do with non ai tooling to 100% accuracy?

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

#158

Post by nottorp »

amluto wrote: post #130
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…

I’d like to see a competent AI replace the time that doctors and nurses spend tediously transcribing notes into a medical record system. More time spent doing the actual job is good for pretty much everyone.

Competent, yes. But the current ones are likely to transcribe "recommend amputating the left foot" as "recommend amputating the right foot". Still want it?

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

#159

Post by jurking_hoff »

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #138
taormina wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people so desperately want to see AI succeed? The financial investment explains it for some.

Why do want a technology that's able to automate human drudgery? Feels like an absurd question.

[dead]

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

#160

Post by Capricorn2481 »

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…

> Not only are the summaries better than those produced by our human agents

We have someone using Firefly for note taking, and it's pretty bad. Frequently gets details wrong or extrapolates way too much from a one-off sentence someone said.

How do you verify these are actually better?

Post reply on HN