MIT report says 95% of AI implementations don't increase profits - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2025, 04:08:24 pm
content: MIT report says 95% of AI implementations don't increase profits, spooking Wall StreetReport raises concerns of an AI bubble burstThe big picture: Warnings that the generative AI market may be forming a dangerous bubblehave intensified in recent weeks. With big tech and AI investments playing an outsized role intoday's stock market, many are starting to question where the returns are.https://www.techspot.com/news/109148-mit-report-95-ai-implementations-dont-increase-profits.html

author: Grandchuck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2025, 04:55:01 pm
content: The big 7:AlphabetAmazonAppleMetaMicrosoftNVIDITeslacomprise about 35% of the US stock market. When you think about this bubble bursting, it gets

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2025, 11:18:49 pm
content: It does really make you wonder. I find tools like ChatGPT useful, as an alternative to Google. But would I pay for them? Probably not. Not a huge amount, at least. Maybe $5-10 a month at most. At that figure, they aren't profitable to run.I suspect that I'm not alone... they are useful tools, but they are "Google++" not "the second coming of tech Jesus" that the AI crowd seems to believe.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2025, 11:25:17 pm
content: Yes, this is where it falls apart. It can be very useful, but who is willing to pay for it? And how do you charge? I'm certainly happy to pay a couple of bucks for a real answer, but I'm unwilling to pay a dime for anything less.Not sure what the answer is here other than it will eventually just be a mass marketing device. And will then become much less useful.So enjoy it while it lasts. It's not much different than what's happened with the internet, and then the web. It's a evolution with lots of good and bad changes.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2025, 11:31:01 pm
content: Burst ya bugger burst

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 01:49:03 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on August 23, 2025, 11:31:01 pmGot some put options out there, do ya?

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 07:16:06 am
content: What do you expect fromArtificialIdiocy?AI is grossly over rated. If you ask any of those bots a serious question and you get a long delay and then no answer. And I am not talking about a question from left field. I mean even a serious question that should be ON TOPIC. The AI bots that I have tried to use are just normal, evolutionary advances in the prior search engines (which had more honest names).An advance, yes. But AI can not legitimately claim the moniker "Intelligence". Calling these bots "AI" is just a sales tactic. I fear we are still a long way from any kind of real artificial intelligence, if it is ever even actually achievable by us human creatures.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 07:53:24 am
content: ask jensen

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 09:09:11 am
content: Quote from: Karel on August 23, 2025, 04:08:24 pmQuote

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 09:12:59 am
content: Quote from: EPAIII on August 24, 2025, 07:16:06 amI'm curious, what serious questions have you asked an AI bot and what wrong/non-answers have you gotten? I have found the odd hallucination (getting less frequent with newer models) but generally find the provided answers to be accurate and useful."AI" is freely acknowledged in the community as being a stupid term invented 50 years ago but these things tend to stick.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 10:56:51 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 24, 2025, 09:12:59 amYeah - I remember when chess playing games were considered AI.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 11:17:14 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 24, 2025, 10:56:51 amJust so."AI" is amarketinglabel used to indicate something that is not like existing techniques. Perceptrons, neural nets, forward/backward chaining rules, LLMs.

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 11:24:49 am
content: In software engineering, Artificial Intelligence is a term of art meaning whatever we don’t know how to do yet. Naturally, this changes over time.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 12:05:04 pm
content: Quote from: nfmax on August 24, 2025, 11:24:49 amYup.Once upon a time "AI" was marketed to technical experts. Now it is marketed to the gullible - and more worryingly to politicians, preachers, CEOs, and D-level executives.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 12:06:42 pm
content: Meh, sure 95% of anything being implemented is a failure.

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 12:18:44 pm
content: OTOH, it’s a pretty generally applicable rule, that people overestimate the short-term effects of a new technology, but seriously underestimate the long term effects

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 12:51:02 pm
content: Quote from: nfmax on August 24, 2025, 12:18:44 pmBit of confirmation bias there, depending on your definition of "new"Most "new" technologies are insufficiently useful, and die out not too long after their "peak of expectations". For those that don't die out, I agree with you.The trick is to decide which are insufficiently useful, and rapidly ignore them. The key is to understand the underlying principles and to ignore surface glitter.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 05:48:43 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 23, 2025, 11:18:49 pmI wouldn't be so quick to that conclusion. I'm seeing quite a bit of serious use and -I think- in some cases through paid subscriptions to ChatGTP and similar services. AI is basically is another layer on top of search engines like Google which index and format information. Long story short, I think you need to dive deeper into the economics of the companies behind ChatGTP et al to verify / see if they are profitable to run.Interestingly, internet gives AI a free lunch in the form of endless amounts of information. The next step for AI is to filter out the information which is plain wrong. According to a recent test done by a Dutch consumer magazine, Grok seems to be the best at keeping fake/false information out.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 11:03:42 pm
content: Quote from: nfmax on August 24, 2025, 12:18:44 pm"new" sells better than "good" . In fact in some circles "new" IS "good".Long term effects are furure work for therapists, and sociologists."What can I sell today?" is the immediate focus.Not to badmouth MIT or any brainiacs behind the study, but here are two paragraphs from the report that stood out:1:Quote2:QuoteFor one thing, 350 employees, and 150 business leaders is a small sample especially with unknown demographics.We also don't know the mix of marketing & sales tools vs back end automation within the sampled employees, application companies and business leaders.So while the results are interesting, I don't believe they tell the whole story on "AI" rather than AI implemented for a quickbuck "don't have so good of a return" most of the time. And maybe that's the point.I also bet very few people drink milk between 1AM and 4:30 AM....but what does that tell us about milk?

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 11:21:54 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on August 24, 2025, 11:17:14 amAI was a name long before it was a marketing label. All novel ideas need to have a name for the purpose of communicating them to others. What would you use instead of AI?

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2025, 11:30:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 24, 2025, 05:48:43 pmSomehow I am highly skeptical about Grok filtering fake false information. However, I can't help associating Grok with a character in B.C. comic strip I enjoyed decades ago.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2025, 12:04:30 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on August 24, 2025, 11:30:50 pmHere's a Grok output (May 1st) that has been widely reported as the first "AI to rebel against it's creator"That, of course, enraged MAGA sponsors and supporters including Musk.Since then Musk has repeatedlycooked the booksfiddled with the training set to produce answers acceptable to him. Here's Musk's statement on June 17thHere's a July 8th example; I'll leave you to decide whether this shows Musk has been successful.Summary: Grokisfiltering fake/false information,providedyou define "fake/false" to be anything that Musk, MAGA and the far right dislike.Given that, it is entirely unsurprising that nctnico thinks Grok id good.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2025, 12:15:54 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on August 25, 2025, 12:04:30 amThat is not what I wrote at allI only wrote that an independent Dutch consumer magazine did a test and determined (through objective testing as they usually do) that Grok is spreading / parroting the least fake information. Don't shoot the messenger (and don't spread false information; there is enough of that going around)! Personally I never use Grok and very little AI in general because I've found the information provided by AI is not very useful to begin with.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2025, 06:06:38 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on August 25, 2025, 12:04:30 amYou realize that "xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right" is probably just a result of Grok learning this "fact" from countless of media outlets during its whole existence? I don't believe it truly "understands" how it's been trained or how to putthatinto words.AIs are "dumber" than most of us think. It's just an illusion. In this case, I place my bets that the whole left right bias dichotomy is created by media - both left and right - and just learned and amplified by Grok. It repeats the words it has heard. Both sides like it - the left media enjoys that Grok "admits" its bias, and right side bubble enjoys they have their "own" AI.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2025, 07:40:32 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 24, 2025, 05:48:43 pmOpenAI has openly stated that they are losing money on the $20 a subscription.Based on API pricing, someone who uses ChatGPT every day with a total of 10,000 tokens input and output will be costing the company around $5-10 per month in lost revenue, depending upon the model in use. Now revenue is not cost, but it is likely strongly correlated.The AI companies right now have a big dumpster full of investor money and are currently burning it at an insane pace to keep the lights on, hire the best engineers, and stay on top of the competition. They may well succeed, but if they do, they are going to want a big payback. A bit like how when Uber first launched you could get a cab from central London to Heathrow for £10, now it's £60.I don't the field overall will die out, though quite a few companies in it will die. It will then be interesting to see what the revenue model for these survivors looks like. I suspect it will become very expensive and those who depend upon it will be disappointed in having to pay, say $50/month for something close to what they currently enjoy.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2025, 07:42:36 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 27, 2025, 06:06:38 amOh, I realise that!Nonetheless, it is highly amusing.There are many ways to nudge an LLM to bias an output. One is overt instructions, another is covert ones in prompts, and another is the training set.This example is also a way to indicate to people some flaws in LLMs, but realistically too many people will misunderstand the lesson and draw inappropriate conclusions.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2025, 09:09:37 am
content: Quote from: Grandchuck on August 23, 2025, 04:55:01 pmThese companies have a lot more going for them than just AI.Out of this list, maybe NVIDIA would be really badly screwed.