1174
95% of Companies See ‘Zero Return’ on $30 Billion Generative AI Spend, MIT Report Finds
(thedailyadda.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
1174 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
74324 readers
3395 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you trying to claim that the fact that there's lots of money flowing to these AI companies is proof that AI isn't just a bubble caused by money flowing to these AI companies?
I’m saying, if you’re so confident it’s a bubble, why don’t you bet your life savings on it?
First of all, because it doesn't matter whether it's actually real or not, investment doesn't actually follow innovation. The actual value of a company or idea has almost nothing to do with its valuation.
But more importantly, why do you think that's the important part of this conversation? I'm not talking about its long term viability. Neither were you. You were just saying that it was a new innovation and still had to mature. I was saying that it was actually a much older technology that already matured, and which is being given an artificial new round of funding because of good marketing.
So are you alleging the studies, like the ones showing AI is vastly superior at identifying cancer in patients, are fabricated?
I'm saying they can only do it because the big innovation was "throw more money at it." Yes, given a functionally infinite amount of hardware, electricity, legal free reign, and publicity, I could invent a machine that does at least one (1) impressive thing, too.
Remember, these models weren't created to identify cancer in patients better than humans. They were created to do everything better than humans. And the fact that they are mediocre at everything except identifying cancer in patients (and a handful of other things) means that they're failing at 99.997% of their goal.
That doesn't mean that it's innovative, or a breakthrough technology that deserves time to mature. It just means that you get more swings at the law of averages if you have a lot of money.