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

211–220 of 445 posts

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

#211

Post by arahman4710 »

wedn3sday wrote: post #48
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…

One use case I'd love to see an easy plug-and-play solution for is a RAG build around companies vast internal documentation/wikis/codebase to help developers onboard and find information faster. I would love to see less of people trying to replace humans with language models and more of people trying to use language models to make humans jobs less frustrating.

Check out https://asksolo.ai/

We connect with slack/notion/code/etc so that you can do the following:

1. Ask questions about how your code/product works 2. Generate release notes instantly 3. Auto update your documentation when your code changes

We primarily rely on the codebase since it is never out of date

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

#212

Post by ricardonunez »

jordanb wrote: post #140
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…

We use Google meet and it has Gemini transcriptions of our meetings. They are hilariously inaccurate. They confuse who said what. They often invert the meaning "Joe said we should go with approach x" where Joe actually said we should not do X. It also lacks context causing it to "mishear" all of our internal jargon to "shit my iPhone said" levels.

I don’t know how it can confuse because input on mic is relatively straight forward to get. I use fathom and others and they are accurate, better than manual taken. Interesting take, that I don’t memorize 100% on the calls anymore since I rely on note takers, I only remember the major points but when I read the notes, everything comes clear.

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

#213

Post by empath75 »

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…

> Replace junior developers with Claude Code or similar.

I don't know why everyone goes to "replacing". Were a bunch of computer programmers replaced when compilers came out that made writing machine code a lot easier? Of course not, they were more productive and accomplished a lot more, which made them more valuable, not less.

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

#214

Post by MangoToupe »

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…

> We operate large call centers, and agents were previously spending 3-5 minutes after each call writing manual summaries of the calls.

This is a tiny fraction of all work done. This is work people were claiming to have solved 15 years ago. Who cares?

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

#215

Post by [deleted] »

vasco wrote: post #70
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 wonder if the human agents agree the AI summaries are better than their summaries. I was nodding as I read and then told myself "yeah but it wouldn't be able to summarize the meetings I have", so I wonder if this only works in 3rd person.

[deleted]

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

#216

Post by wredcoll »

spogbiper wrote: post #186
systemerror wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big issue with LLMs is that they’re usually right — like 90% of the time — but that last 10% is tough to fix. A 10% failure rate might sound small, but at scale, it's significant — especially when it includes false positives. You end up either having to live with some bad results, build something to automatically catch mistakes, or have a person double-check everything if you want to bring that error rate down.

yes, the entire design relies on a human to check everything. basically it presents what it thinks should be done, and why. the human then agrees or does not. much work is put into streamlining this but ultimately its still human controlled

At the risk of being obvious, this seems set up for failure in the same way expecting a human to catch an automated car's mistakes is. Although I assume mistakes here probably don't matter very much.

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

#218

Post by creaturemachine »

nuker wrote: post #147
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…

> recently switched to using AI to transcribe and write these summaries Did users knew that conversation was recorded?

Yeah the standard "this call may be recorded for quality or training purposes" preamble shouldn't cover for slurping your voiceprint to further the butchering of client service that this call centre is here for.

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

#219

Post by watwut »

nuker wrote: post #147
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…

> recently switched to using AI to transcribe and write these summaries Did users knew that conversation was recorded?

Typical call center call is recorded and you are told so by the start of the conversation. I had quite a few of those.

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

#220

Post by wredcoll »

jaimebuelta wrote: post #52
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…

Stock images. I’ve already seen trining courses (for compliance reasons) using AI videos. A bit cringey, but I imagine cheaper than shooting real people.

> but I imagine cheaper than shooting real people

How much does that cost these days? Do you still have to fly to remote islands?

Post reply on HN