97% of organizations find it tough to demonstrate the business value of gen AI
87% who started investing will see increased investment
Clowns
Reports like this are going to pop the bubble lol
I work in tech in one of those companies that thinks AI can solve literally everything, and what I hear from leadership on these kinds of reports is that we just haven’t figured out how to measure the success yet. So probably it won’t be the trigger.
The writing is on the wall though, a couple of weeks ago an exec came flying in with this great idea for how we can replace an entire product with AI. Honestly we probably could, it wasn’t a bad idea. The issue came in with the cost…even at the heavily subsidized by venture capital cost, it was going to cost us more per customer than what they pay us, just to do this one small part of the overall workflow, using AI. So sure, we could build out to this AI that does all this cool shit for us (except when it goes off the rails and does it wrong, which definitely happens). But the cost was prohibitive NOW. Imagine how expensive it will be when the real costs start propagating down to the buyers.
What I’ve learned about AI working adjacent to it is that it actually can do quite a lot, as long as you don’t need it to be perfect and as long as the real total cost of using it is actually less than writing real code that does the same thing. Which is not gonna apply to the vast majority of dumb things people are trying to do with AI. That’ll be the real trigger; shit goes off the rails because the AI can’t do it predictably and/or as the true cost starts becoming apparent nobody can afford it anymore. And all the companies who are reliant on it will collapse entirely.
I just found out that my company has AI Pillars starting with 1-productivity aid to [a second thing I can’t remember] to 3-agentic to 4-worker replacement. They want 100% of workers in finance to be using AI in the first pillar. Pillars 3 and 4 are completely hypothetical because AI doesn’t do math and track numbers correctly or repeatably and it cannot go off the rails with financial info.
It really doesn’t make sense to use pillars as these are more stagegates for implementation
Using AI to do math is the funniest thing to me when Python exists
Doing very complex math to fail at very simple math, AI in a nutshell.
Yeah what’s ridiculous is that AI is useful. When used by an expert programmer, it is helpful, it can write code quicker, it can get projects from 0 to like 95% of the way there very very fast. It’s not perfect, it’s not going to like revolutionise the human experience, it’s not going to be a widescale replacement for workers, but it is a helpful tool. Still a huge fucking bubble though, because you can make money selling AI but not the kind of money the companies like OpenAI are hoping they can make.
Its not a coincidence that suddenly a lot of banks have been issuing warnings over the AI bubble. They already know.
looks like this is from january, so I guess it would have if it could have. Sites like HN are full of “but have you tried it THIS week??? Otherwise your opinion is invalid”
I don’t know what to expect from a correction since there’s just constantly a “new, better model” every day, thousands on hugging face alone, let alone proprietary ones. It makes the effort to prove the negative (ie. These models are not useful for most tasks) very high so I don’t typically argue with people about it. I think that the constant treadmill to keep up with the “improvements” is part of the marketing, to be honest.
I’m sure this is typical of every bubble but to be honest I’m not sure what’s going to pop it if GPT-5 didn’t, if OpenAI’s P/L statements don’t, if businesses aren’t fatigued yet with all of the “news” about new models, if the economics not making sense hasn’t stopped anyone… it’s a weird time in tech right now.
AI, Tesla, and crypto have got me wondering if bubbles even pop any more
Never underestimate the ability of an MBA to focus on exactly the wrong ways to increase profits and to instead get on jargon-filled hype trains (the jargon is catnip for them when trying to justify their own existence). Sure they do also go on power trips and inevitably discipline labor, but they spend 90% of their energy talking about promoting “growth” (they can’t define it) and becoming an “industry leader” (they can’t define that either) with the worst powerpoint presentation you’ve ever seen forced on a captive audience. Most important is to always promote a mentality of us (management) vs them (workers) so that everyone in management sees their own interests as aligned with yours in some way.
Anyways I hate MBAs.
They just aren’t measuring the value correctly. For example, if they start tracking the length and frequency of my one co-worker’s passive aggressive emails since he started using chatGPT, I’m sure they’ll see the gains.
Businesses shrug and lay off workers anyways, because they just needed any excuse. They don’t want to pay the costs of labour. Will the business fall apart in a year or two? Who cares they’ll have moved on by then.
Um. It makes coding easier, scheduling, and I taught deepseek how to sort of play DnD. That’s all I got.
LLMs are a useful tool for a bunch of things, but it turns out they’re not really easy to monetize directly. I’ve also noticed that the approach in China is completely different where LLMs are just treated as infrastructure you build stuff on top of. What we see in the west is a bubble akin to what we saw during dotCom days, where investors are throwing money at this stuff and people are building all kinds of dumb shit that doesn’t actually make any sense.
It seems like China has a better overall understanding of what LLMs actually are. The marketing here seems to be based around labeling everything as ‘AI’ and using it to figure out how to replace employees.
Also convincing fake footage to manipulate the masses.
Oh yeah for sure, I imagine it’s an artifact of the fact that China doesn’t allow capitalist speculative bubbles to run wild. I thought this interview was pretty interesting incidentally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0PaVrpFD14
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
How do i get my superannuation (401k) out of the bubble
You could mess around trying to exclude big tech like some wacky S&P 500 ex-tech fund or try to overweight small and mid cap. That’s if you absolutely must hold US though.
For me about 70% of my portfolio is a world index with overweight on international. 60% VTI + 40% VXUS or equivalents. This is considered overexposure to international by conventional US investors.
The other 30% is all-in on China via MCHI. I’m edging towards increasing international and China exposure and reducing US. The US large caps are fundamentally overvalued so I’ll probably do this soon. Just hard to make that mental jump even though the material analysis says so.
To be clear, this is a risky strategy. All the major players and investors worldwide are adamant there is no AI bubble, and no US bubble, and China will never pay off or grow.
It’s just about what you’re willing to risk to say you’re right and they’re wrong. Safest choice is VT and chill.
@Grok is this true?
Hundreds of billions down the hole and very little evidence that anything has gotten more productive.
