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

231–240 of 445 posts

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

#231

Post by rowanseymour »

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.

Same here. It's frustrating that it doesn't seem to have contextual awareness of who we are and the things we work on so things like names of our products, names of big clients, that we use repeatedly in meetings, are often butchered.

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

#232

Post by deadbabe »

alooPotato wrote: post #152
dsr_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you want to search summaries, or do you want to save millions of dollars per year?

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

#233

Post by rank0 »

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…

Seriously! The product itself is supposed to be the valuable thing…regardless of the underlying technology.

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

#234

Post by jsmith99 »

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…

MS Copilot is quite useful for meeting minutes and summaries etc. Still not nearly as useful as good handwritten notes but saves loads of time.

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

#235

Post by bishnu »

The illustrative example to me is the construction of railroads at the beginning of the Industrial revolution. Unquestionably useful, unquestionably important there were nevertheless at least 3 speculative financial bubbles centered on railway construction.

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

#237

Post by OutOfHere »

eulgro wrote: post #206
GloriousMEEPT wrote: post #188

One thing I ponder after remembering previous tech booms, is that they often left behind something extremely valuable (fiber). With all the GPU datacenters rolling out, what next bubble can take advantage of this boon, if it is one?

It will probably all be used to mine bitcoin.

For many years now, Bitcoin is mined only with custom ASICs, no longer with GPUs.

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

#238

Post by tovej »

taormina wrote: post #72
tovej wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shovel business is good as long as the gold rush lasts. Once the gold rush is over, you're going to have to deal with a significant decrease in volume, unless you can find other customers. Crypto's over, gaming isn't a large enough market to fill the hole, the only customers that could fill the demand would be military projects. Considering the arms race with China, and the many military applications of AI, that…

There aren’t enough GPUs for average gamers to buy anything vaguely recent and they would love to be able to. Making the best GPUs on the planet is still huge and the market is quite large. Scalping might finally die at this rate, but NVDA wasn’t making any of the scalping money anyway so who cares? Data centers and gamers still need every GPU NVDA can make.

Oh there's definitely a market but it's not as big or worth as much the AI market. Gamers don't need GB200s or H100s, and AMD beats Nvidia on price in most segments. Nvidia isn't going to die, but gamers won't fill the demand.

Data centers might, but then they'll need something else to compute, and if AI fails to deliver on the big disruptive promises it seems unlikely that other technologies will fill those shoes.

I'm just saying that something big will have to change, either Nvidias story or share price. And the story is most likely to pivot to military applications.

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

#239

Post by FirmwareBurner »

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.

>Store the call audio at 24Kb/s Opus - that's 180KB per minute

Why OPUS though? There's dedicated audio codecs in the VoiP/telecom industry that are specifically designed for the best size/quality for voice call encoding.

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

#240

Post by kingkawn »

shantara wrote: post #199
kingkawn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#5 is an enormous use case that when well implemented will permanently replace prescribed character arcs It is uniquely susceptible because the gaming market is well acclimated to mediocre writing and one dimensional character development that’s tacked on to a software product, so the improvements of making “thinking” improvisational characters can be immense. Another revenue potential you’ve missed is visual effects…

>#5 is an enormous use case that when well implemented will permanently replace prescribed character arcs I mostly disagree. Every gaming AI character demo I've seen so far is just adds more irrelevant filler dialogue between the player and the game they want to play. It's the same problem that some of the older RPG games had, thinking that 4 paragraphs of text is always better than 1.

I agree the implementation isn’t great, but mostly it’s because the devs aren’t well versed yet in setting the parameters for the AI’s personality and how rapidly it gets to the point. That’s true of all chatbot AIs out of the box at the moment it seems, but is fixable with an eye to the artistry of the output
Post reply on HN