Am I the only one who looked at this shortened headline and wondered why anyone is allowing AIs to fly airplanes?
It certainly made me do a double-take.
95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
61–70 of 174 posts
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#62> "“Every single Monday was called 'AI Monday.' You couldn’t have customer calls, you couldn’t work on budgets, you had to only work on AI projects.”"
> "Vaughan saw that his team was not fully on board. His ultimate response? He replaced nearly 80% of the staff within a year"
Being that this is Fortune magazine, it makes sense that they're portraying it this way, but reading between the lines there a little bit, it seems like the staff knew what would happen and wasn't keen on replacing themselves.
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#635% success is actually way higher than I thought it would be. At that rate I suppose there will be actually profitable AI companies with VC subsidies
5% success rate might mean: if you get it to work, you are capturing value that the other 95% are not.
A lot of this must come down to execution. And there's a lot of snake oil out there at the execution layer.
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#64Nobody 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…
> … disappointingly, one of them was Jira.
I think this highlights an interesting point: Sensible use cases are unsexy. But the pushers want stuff, however unrealistic, that lends itself to breathless hype that can be blown out of proportion.
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#65I remember when it was being said that computers in business had basically the same impact.
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#66What's the failure rates if technology pilots in general for comparison? For example, I heard that SAP has an 80-90% deployment failure rate back in the day, but don't have a citable source for it.
That is not remotely true tbh. The company would have failed long ago if it were
Not if most of those failures are medium sized businesses with <1000 employees and your successes include a majority of the world's largest corporations that sell goods.
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#67Nobody 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…
But do you need AI for those answers? I sometimes do the same thing, but Google/DDG/whatever works fine for most, and a niche app works for others (IDing a bird = Merlin app, for example).
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#68Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#69Nobody 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…
My walk is also around a reservoir, also 4-5 times a week and the length of the walk around it is also 1 hour.
Are you the guy that walks the poodle?
Re: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report
#70This is proof LLMs are viable and productive in my opinion. The baseline rate for business failure over 5 years is around 90%, so they say. With how much hype surrounds LLM wrapper startups this is still an astounding amount of novel business model creation.