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

281–290 of 445 posts

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

#281

Post by wl »

beart wrote: post #176
amluto wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But... that is the actual job. A clear medical history is very important, and I'm not ready yet to cut out my doctor from that process. This reminds me of the way juniors tend to think about things. That is, writing code is "the actual job" and commit messages, documentation, project tracking, code review, etc. are tedious chores that get in the way. Of course, there is no end to the complaints of legacy code bases n…

Charting is for billing. If the point were to have accurate medical records useful for facilitating diagnosis and treatment, we'd structure medical records way differently. Fishing clinically-useful bits of information out of encounter and progress notes is tedious and only done as a last resort.

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

#283

Post by computerthings »

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…

[dead]

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

#284

Post by variadix »

andix wrote: post #201
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.

Imagine a follow-up call of a customer. They are referring to earlier calls and the call center agents needs to check what it was about. So they can skim/read the transcripts while talking to the customer. I guess it's really hard to listen to transcripts while you're on the phone.

Still makes more sense to do the transcription an analysis lazily rather than ahead of time (assuming you can do it relatively quickly). If that person never calls in again the transcription was a waste of money.

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

#285

Post by trenchpilgrim »

roywiggins wrote: post #278
sillyfluke wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also will have saved them all the cost of the AI summaries that are incorrect as well. The parent states: >Not only are the summaries better than those produced by our human agents... Now, since they have not mentioned what it took to actually verify that the AI summaries were in fact better than the human agents, I'm sceptical they did the necessary due dillengence. Why do I think this? Because I have actually t…

In the context of call centers in particular I actually can believe that a moderately inaccurate AI model could be better on average than harried humans writing a summary after the call. Could a human do better carefully working off a recording, absolutely, but that's not what needs to be compared against. It just has to be as good as a call center worker with 3-5 minutes working off their own memory of the call, not…

Especially humans whose jobs are performance-graded on how quickly they can start talking to the next customer.

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

#287

Post by leetharris »

tqi wrote: post #66

The link to the report pdf redirects to a landing page[1] that makes me think this "study" is run-of-the-mill content marketing. The CTA at the bottom of the page says "Join the Revolution / Be at the forefront of creating the agentic web. Get exposure and faster adoption for your AI products and tools," which certainly doesn't give the impression that this is an objective report. Either way I can't speak to the qual…

Try to click the author name. It doesn't work. This isn't a real author or a real site.

HN is turning into reddit, where people look at the title, come to the comments, and post if they agree with the title or not.

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

#288

Post by 9dev »

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.

I’m not sure you can even generalise that much anymore. The US banking system is stuck in the dark ages compared to other countries, China is leading in electric cars, photovoltaics. and lots of other industries.

You could make that claim for the software industry, but I’m pretty sure a big part of the US moat is due to oligopolies, lock-in effects, or corruption in favour of billionaires and their ventures.

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

#289

Post by apwell23 »

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 was pretty sure you were going to say "meeting summaries" ( which apparently is poster child of LLM application) .

my guess was wrong but not really.

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

#290

Post by chriskanan »

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…

Sam Altman way oversold GPT-5's capabilities, in that it doesn't feel like a big leap in capability from a user's perspective; however, the a idea of a trainable dynamic router enabling them to run inference using a lot less compute (in aggregate) to me seems like a major win. Just not necessarily a win for the user (a win for the electric grid and making OpenAI's models more cost competitive).
Post reply on HN