CORP/BIZ "The Value Didn't Arrive": Bain Finds Cost-Savings From AI Are Falling Far Short Of Projections

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane

"The Value Didn't Arrive": Bain Finds Cost-Savings From AI Are Falling Far Short Of Projections​

by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Jun 02, 2026 - 09:50 PM
Now that attention within the AI revolution has one again firmly turned toward the cost-benefit equation (i..e., ROI) of tokens (see "From Singularity To Tokenomics: The AI Narrative Just Hit A Serious Snag") in particular, and the trillions behind the AI spending rollout in general, and we say once again because every few months we get some iteration of the following report from Goldman published almost two years ago today...


... we have more bad news: according to a global survey by Bain, cost savings from automation are broadly falling short of projections. Which means that those expecting big savings from their investments in artificial intelligence, which is most companies, will be disappointed.

The missed targets “should be making executives uncomfortable,” since many of them are approving increased spending for artificial intelligence on the basis of expected savings, the consulting firm said in a report shared exclusively with Bloomberg News. The problem is there are little actual savings to speak of.

The survey, completed in April, was based on responses from executives at 951 companies with more than $100 million in revenue, across nine sectors: retail, technology, advanced manufacturing, healthcare, consumer products, energy, financial services, telecom/media/entertainment and insurance.

It found that among companies measuring their AI cost savings, the largest share (40%) realized reductions of 10% or less. Predictably, most had been expecting to see far more meaningful improvement, especially since they spent far more than that on the new technology.





Here’s the part that Bain found the most troubling: 44% of large companies that are funding their next wave of AI spending are basing those investments on the last round of savings - savings that haven’t yet materialized.

“The prior wave underdelivered. The savings pool is smaller than assumed,”
Bain warned. “And the investment case for the current wave was sized against projections rather than actuals.” Kinda like the bubble in AI forward earnings: based on projections - which as any intern can tell you can flip on a dime - rather than actuals.

“Self-funding the next wave from past returns sounds like discipline. In reality, it is a circular bet with a structural leak,” the firm cautioned, and concluded that "The technology worked. The value didn’t arrive."

Whether driven by hope or FOMO or a blend of both, the AI boom is exposing divides between promise and reality. An MIT research report last year showed that 95% of corporate AI pilots fall flat and concluded that the “primary factor keeping organizations on the wrong side of the GenAI Divide is the learning gap, tools that don't learn, integrate poorly, or match workflows.”

So Bain’s latest survey wasn’t the first evidence of AI underdelivering so far on expectations. And it’s not likely the last either.

But the Bain report isolated a different problem: “Despite a decade of investments in data modernization running well into hundreds of billions of dollars globally, the No. 1 reason AI programs underperform is that companies cannot reliably get access to their own data,” Bain said.

“Companies that don’t validate their reinvestment math against what automation actually returned, rather than what it was supposed to return, are compounding risk rather than managing it” the Bain report concluded, confirming what many have already sensed: virtually nobody has done effective ROI analysis amid a technological rollout that has already soaked up more than $1 trillion in capital, the return on which appears to be modest at best.

Bain's prescription: Instead of waiting to structure all of their data to make it ingestible by AI, companies should start with what’s available to feed into the models, and then use AI to help sort out how to structure the rest.

Meanwhile, companies that were meeting their savings targets reported running into barriers with data structure and accessibility at even higher rates than those missing their targets, but they were less likely to report organizational challenges such as insufficient budgets or competing priorities.

Adding fuel to the fire, a comparable report from Gartner found that over 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by the end of 2027, due to escalating costs, unclear business value or inadequate risk controls.

“Most agentic AI projects right now are early stage experiments or proof of concepts that are mostly driven by hype and are often misapplied,” said Anushree Verma, Senior Director Analyst, Gartner. “This can blind organizations to the real cost and complexity of deploying AI agents at scale, stalling projects from moving into production. They need to cut through the hype to make careful, strategic decisions about where and how they apply this emerging technology.”

As such, Gartner recommends agentic AI only be pursued where it delivers clear value or ROI, noting that "Integrating agents into legacy systems can be technically complex, often disrupting workflows and requiring costly modifications. In many cases, rethinking workflows with agentic AI from the ground up is the ideal path to successful implementation."

“To get real value from agentic AI, organizations must focus on enterprise productivity, rather than just individual task augmentation,” said Verma. “They can start by using AI agents when decisions are needed, automation for routine workflows and assistants for simple retrieval. It’s about driving business value through cost, quality, speed and scale.”


The problem, it now appears, is that virtually nobody has done an actual ROI analysis. But with token costs now soaring...



... the time has finally arrived, and as enterprises pull back in horror from the "great promise" of the agentic black hole, one can easily understand why both OpenAI and Anthropic, both of which are extrapolating their burst in agentic revenue in perpetuity, are rushing to go public before the market once again does the ROI math.
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
The transition to AI has been going on longer than most realize. And the advantages of AI are "spread out" more than most can detect.

Everyone investing expected to invest in AI as an entity - and see a windfall in its adoption. But the windfall has been occurring longer and less effectively as the marketplace "adopts" around it.

AI is but a tool - an effective tool certainly - but a tool waiting for adoption by need. So far the need has been tempered by cost of the change.

Just like a new axe handle, a hay-rake, or new and improved traces.

Dobbin
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
IMO, AI has been sold to corps as equal or less cost than labor costs for humans. Glossing over....

the hardware, software, installation and most importantly the INTEGRATION of said software, into existing unique network architectures. AI EXPECTS a certain database structure - and if a company has adapted their database to their work environment... it's going to take longer, be harder, to teach AI which table to call/search/edit. Then, of course, you have to teach the remaining humans how to use it. Now that it's not direct into the DB anymore.

The other issue is that communication styles and word usage among humans isn't consistent. We can usually intuit each other's meanings (certainly not always)... but a machine can not make that leap.

So, it's not surprising corps are seeing AI become a boat anchor disrupting their operations, making processes more complex with less satisfactory results, and costing a whole lot more than simply hiring a few more people.

This AI integration, is coupled with the data center issue - because "the cloud" has been marketed and sold as the solution to maintaining your own secure storage and backups. So all this data (and how much duplication/errors is there??) needs to go be stored in the data centers that all the sane people worried about resources for HUMANS, are objecting to.

And if the corp borrowed money for their AI project? At what interest rate?

This cluster is just beginning; wait till complexity grows enough that simple processes like paying a bill/invoice becomes impossible to navigate.
 

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane
I talked to DB who is in software development and has been using AI for about a year now. I asked him why companies like Uber and Starbucks had cancelled their AI contracts. The companies themselves said that the cost savings just weren't there. For Starbucks the AI was to do inventory, nothing really complicated.

His reply was interesting. He said that those involved in coding AI have almost a religious devotion to their products. If the AI said it, it must be so. His practice was to get the outline of his project together, use AI to fill everything in, AND THEN RUN THE WHOLE PROGRAM TO SEE IF IT DOES WHAT THE CLIENT IS PAYING FOR.

So far it's worked for him.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
So like solar and wind power it's not cost effective on a grand scale. Do I have this wrong?
It isn’t that it isn’t cost-effective. The article simply states that it is not saving them as much money as they expected. There’s a difference. I dislike AI. I run into it far too much in the area of customer service. What AI gains in speed often destroys in customer service. Until they learn where AI will benefit the gains and returns they expect will never materialize.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
So like solar and wind power it's not cost effective on a grand scale. Do I have this wrong?
No you don't...... at this point in time.

I believe this is similar to the computer revolution. When I was a 18 year old, I got a Vic20 computer with a tape drive. It was great, but did not provide the value for what I spent on it. No computer did for several decades.

These days, no one can operate without using one on some scale.

I believe AI is the same. People expect too much today. Give it a decade and then review it.

This AI stuff is less than 3 years old ( in the public eye )
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I don't understand this "locked in" statement. I will do business with a company that human customer service over just AI, every single time - and if the AI is used gate-keep customers from talking to humans - still a hard no from me. Even if I'm paying for the human aspect, I'm willing.
 

pylortes

Contributing Member
From the perspective of an (govt) IT Director, I see where AI is baked into products, and this causes a price increase; to some degree, I understand that, but not at 3x the cost. Which I have seen in some areas. I haven't seen a direct improvement with AI-included products over previous generations and certainly not enough to cite a cost savings equivalent to replacing an employee, or overtime to support the products.
 

pylortes

Contributing Member
It isn’t that it isn’t cost-effective. The article simply states that it is not saving them as much money as they expected. There’s a difference. I dislike AI. I run into it far too much in the area of customer service. What AI gains and speed often destroys in customer service. Until they learn where AI will benefit the games and returns they expect will never materialize.
I will admit that the AI used at Panda Express drive-thru is getting my orders correct, spoke clearly and each time i test it a little, (radio on, talk show, mumble) ...it has a cardboard personality but I can see where this is going to minimize mixed orders and eliminate a job duty in that facility.
 

Luddite

Has No Life - Lives on TB
They have to invest in AI lest they fall behind their competitors. They’re locked in. The article doesn’t mention this nor do posters here. Companies cannot simply quit AI investing.
Can't that be considered circular logic?
In a sense that's like investing in tulips. Or polyester leisure suits.
Or pet rocks.

I realize that's too simplistic.
I'm looking at AI investment as a "too big to fail" necessity. It MUST work. Japan just invested half a trillion dollars in OUR nuke generation for AI/data centers...

This game of Global Jenga CAN'T fail. / sarc
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I get 20Gauge's point. I lived through those days too. Maybe there are limited uses of AI within data-driven processes NOW; but it's not ready for "prime time" yet. And the promises may not arrive; people - especially the military - needs to be wary and very results (reproducible result) driven in their decisions about when/where to incorporate this.

I don't CARE about competition with China in this instance. AI can blow up in their faces, too.
 

Blacknarwhal

Three-Time Trump Voter
I get 20Gauge's point. I lived through those days too. Maybe there are limited uses of AI within data-driven processes NOW; but it's not ready for "prime time" yet. And the promises may not arrive; people - especially the military - needs to be wary and very results (reproducible result) driven in their decisions about when/where to incorporate this.

I don't CARE about competition with China in this instance. AI can blow up in their faces, too.

Sounds super short-sighted.

There's still a lot of value in AI, especially if they can finally get a handle on how to take a script and turn it into a video. Pulls all the teeth out of the Hollyweird system.
 

dstraito

TB Fanatic
The ONLY way it is cost justified is to get regular power consumers to pay for infrastructure upgrades, transmission lines, water usage etc.

Communities are starting to push back where they can and the cost of litigation plus the denied plan for consumers to pay is making it a lot more expensive. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, even mini ones because of the regulations.

The infrastructure is just not there, it cannot even support the existing attempt to make people drive electric vehicles.

Wind power or wind turbines will NEVER recoup the energy costs it takes to make them, prepare the foundations, transport them, maintain them, repair them when they break (and they do) and then finally dispose them as you can't recycle them.

I really like the five minute video of Landman discusses this

View: https://youtu.be/fmbZwxEnAFc?si=SyTYjvnc0gWTOkPV
 

Publius

On TB every waking moment
I agree that computers have their use in to days business world and tis due to software developed for various needs and its a compact digital file cabinet with a tremendous amount of storage space.
 

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane
Vox Day posted this summary of a study but failed to post a link to it; very unusual for him. I managed to find a PDF on on a tweet. The summary is below.

View: https://twitter.com/cblatts/status/2061024616739475853


Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy.

Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes.

The paper is called “The AI Layoff Trap.” Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled.The conclusion is one sentence.

“At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand.”

An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself.

Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation.

The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger.

No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block’s workforce and said publicly: “Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion.” Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem.
 

KFhunter

You have insufficient privileges to reply here
Vox Day posted this summary of a study but failed to post a link to it; very unusual for him. I managed to find a PDF on on a tweet. The summary is below.

View: https://twitter.com/cblatts/status/2061024616739475853


Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy.

Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes.

The paper is called “The AI Layoff Trap.” Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled.The conclusion is one sentence.

“At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand.”

An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself.

Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation.

The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger.

No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block’s workforce and said publicly: “Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion.” Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem.

@Sacajawea

This is what I meant by locked in. If they don't keep up with competitors they get left behind and go bankrupt, bought out by either competitors and merged or asset liquidation predators. Any publicly traded company has to use AI, they have to lay off workers, they have to cut costs and have to use AI to increase production and drive profits.

We're at the very cusp of AI taking over most business models. Even Starbucks will by necessity revisit AI.


I will hold out that anti-AI service based companies will emerge and do well featuring anti-AI human services - depending on overall public adoption of AI services. These will be farm stands, roadside coffee shops etc. Small business.

 

Seeker22

Has No Life - Lives on TB
@Sacajawea

This is what I meant by locked in. If they don't keep up with competitors they get left behind and go bankrupt, bought out by either competitors and merged or asset liquidation predators. Any publicly traded company has to use AI, they have to lay off workers, they have to cut costs and have to use AI to increase production and drive profits.

We're at the very cusp of AI taking over most business models. Even Starbucks will by necessity revisit AI.


I will hold out that anti-AI service based companies will emerge and do well featuring anti-AI human services - depending on overall public adoption of AI services. These will be farm stands, roadside coffee shops etc. Small business.


The JIT model was intentionally broken. If fuel is not available in future, local small businesses may become the norm.

Most small business owners can't afford AI. That may be a blessing in disguise.
 

King Samson

I'm Here
“Self-funding the next wave from past returns sounds like discipline. In reality, it is a circular bet with a structural leak,” the firm cautioned, and concluded that "The technology worked. The value didn’t arrive."

virtually nobody has done effective ROI analysis amid a technological rollout that has already soaked up more than $1 trillion in capital, the return on which appears to be modest at best.
And this is where I believe the next BIG blow up of the economy will come from. All the businesses and investors that jumped into AI with both feet, won't get the ROI they were expecting. And the absolute MASSIVE over building of datacenters, with no customers, will take it all down.

TRILLIONS $$$ went into the plan, MILLIONS $$$ will come out...
 

Publius

On TB every waking moment
There was a story the other day, regarding the power requirements for the datacenters. Someone mentioned, if solar and wind was such a great producer of power, why aren't the roofs of all these datacenters full of solar panels???

They're not...

Think of that for a second.....

I agree and where are these marxists pushing solar and wind power, these Al data centers have a really huge carbon foot print.
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
This was obvious to me years ago after a required homework exercise in my first year calculus class (I barely passed the calculus, barely…) but my exposure was to writing a simple BASIC language program (which I did pass) made me realize how powerful computers were going to be, and ultimately all jobs would be done by computer aided machines. white collar first- and then blue collar jobs as the robotics catches up.

by “coincidence” the next year of college I stumbled into the last book of the Bible (Revelation) and it all became completely obvious and I decided to leave college just before Christmas. It has been a hard row to hoe most of the 55 years since then but I have learned how to work (hard), grow and harvest gardens, herbs for healing, build homes and domes, and gradually add solar power and water sources and wood-powered combustion to my homestead. This past two years I have spent about 2 hours in the early hours of the mornings perusing various youtube videos to learn everything necessary to survival. My lackadaisical friends, relatives, and neighbors don’t ”get it”, yet. Glad I found this web site long ago. Thanks Dennis and all who have contributed to our knowledge base here!
 
Last edited:

bbbuddy

DEPLORABLE ME
The ONLY way it is cost justified is to get regular power consumers to pay for infrastructure upgrades, transmission lines, water usage etc.

Communities are starting to push back where they can and the cost of litigation plus the denied plan for consumers to pay is making it a lot more expensive. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, even mini ones because of the regulations.

The infrastructure is just not there, it cannot even support the existing attempt to make people drive electric vehicles.

Wind power or wind turbines will NEVER recoup the energy costs it takes to make them, prepare the foundations, transport them, maintain them, repair them when they break (and they do) and then finally dispose them as you can't recycle them.

I really like the five minute video of Landman discusses this

View: https://youtu.be/fmbZwxEnAFc?si=SyTYjvnc0gWTOkPV
That was agreat show.
 

bbbuddy

DEPLORABLE ME
Vox Day posted this summary of a study but failed to post a link to it; very unusual for him. I managed to find a PDF on on a tweet. The summary is below.

View: https://twitter.com/cblatts/status/2061024616739475853


Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy.

Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes.

The paper is called “The AI Layoff Trap.” Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled.The conclusion is one sentence.

“At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand.”

An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself.

Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation.

The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger.

No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block’s workforce and said publicly: “Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion.” Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem.
Yep. This is why Ford started out paying his workers well for the times. When asked why, he said they needed enough money to buy his product.

Everyone that loses a job to AI is one less customer. Downward spiral.
 

Plain Jane

Just Plain Jane

'Human role narrowing': Anthropic calls for global AI slowdown as systems could escape control​

Technology
The developer of the Claude chatbot says a pause in the AI race would "likely be a good thing" and warns that cutting-edge models are beginning to show signs they could become increasingly difficult for humans to control.
Issued on: 05/06/2026 - 04:51Modified: 05/06/2026 - 09:12
2 minReading time
Share
By:
FRANCE 24

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic suggested Thursday a global pause on building the most powerful AI systems as the latest models are beginning to show signs they could escape human control.

The San Francisco-based company, which makes the Claude family of AI models, said in a report that a worldwide slowdown in cutting-edge AI development would "likely be a good thing" – but warned that if only one company stopped, rivals would simply race ahead.

"We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology," it said.

Getting a real pause to work would mean multiple major AI companies in multiple countries – most notably the US and China – all agreeing to stop at the same time, under rules everyone could actually verify, Anthropic said.


"Without a global coordination mechanism, companies and governments will have to make difficult decisions about safety while under competitive and geopolitical pressures," it said.

The company has faced pushback from others in the industry – and officials in the White House – who say its focus on worst-case scenarios overstates the risks and amounts to a strategy for slowing rivals under the cover of safety concerns.

Still, the White House has acknowledged the power of the company's Mythos model, which has not been made available to the general public due to its cybersecurity capabilities and is currently deployed only to a small number of vetted organisations.

The proposal would face an uphill battle in Washington and Silicon Valley, where US officials and tech executives have repeatedly argued that any slowdown in AI development risks handing China a decisive strategic edge in what many see as the defining technology race of the century.

US President Donald Trump, however, said he discussed the possibility of cooperating with China on AI safety issues during his recent visit to Beijing.

Trump also signed an executive order this week that allows the government 30 days to conduct a preliminary review of the most powerful US AI models before their release.

Watch moreChinese-linked tech company uses AI to predict who might become a dissident

'Human role narrowing'​

Anthropic compared the problem to nuclear arms control treaties – but said it would be even harder to get a handle on, since AI training is far easier to hide than a missile silo, and the temptation to quietly keep going would be enormous.

The company said it plans to bring together government officials, scientists, advocacy groups and competing AI firms in coming months to figure out how such a system could work.

The call for coordination comes alongside internal data showing that AI is already dramatically speeding up the development of AI itself, Anthropic said.

That acceleration creates a feedback loop that Anthropic warned could eventually lead to what researchers call "recursive self-improvement."

That's the idea of an AI system that becomes capable of essentially teaching itself to get smarter, without much human help.

"We are not there yet, and recursive self-improvement is not inevitable," the report said, while adding that it could arrive sooner than most governments and institutions are ready for.


"The evidence suggests that the human role is narrowing at each step in the AI development process," the company said.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
 

King Samson

I'm Here
I keep thinking about the story a year or so ago, about the three early A.I. developers in the field, who suddenly left their jobs, as the didn't like the "direction" A.I. was going, and were concerned about using it for nefarious reasons...

Gotta go see if I can find the story....
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
From the perspective of an (govt) IT Director, I see where AI is baked into products, and this causes a price increase; to some degree, I understand that, but not at 3x the cost. Which I have seen in some areas. I haven't seen a direct improvement with AI-included products over previous generations and certainly not enough to cite a cost savings equivalent to replacing an employee, or overtime to support the products.
This to a large extent is what we saw with computers in the early days.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
I will admit that the AI used at Panda Express drive-thru is getting my orders correct, spoke clearly and each time i test it a little, (radio on, talk show, mumble) ...it has a cardboard personality but I can see where this is going to minimize mixed orders and eliminate a job duty in that facility.
OH! That is fantastic. I can not tell you the number of times my drink was wrong. Unsweet vs Sweet.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
I get 20Gauge's point. I lived through those days too. Maybe there are limited uses of AI within data-driven processes NOW; but it's not ready for "prime time" yet. And the promises may not arrive; people - especially the military - needs to be wary and very results (reproducible result) driven in their decisions about when/where to incorporate this.

I don't CARE about competition with China in this instance. AI can blow up in their faces, too.
With the way China does things? It will blow up. Just a matter of when.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
Sounds super short-sighted.

There's still a lot of value in AI, especially if they can finally get a handle on how to take a script and turn it into a video. Pulls all the teeth out of the Hollyweird system.
I did not mean to convey that AI will not pay off. I am simply saying it is too early to assume it is under performing. It is performing in a manner similar to early desk PCs. Not really a good bang for the buck.

Give it 10 years and not 10 months and we will see something special, ( I am betting on )

But

It is too early to say it works..... it does, just not well enough yet
 
Top