373
MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing (fortune.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Despite the rush to integrate powerful new models, about 5% of AI pilot programs achieve rapid revenue acceleration; the vast majority stall, delivering little to no measurable impact on P&L.

The research—based on 150 interviews with leaders, a survey of 350 employees, and an analysis of 300 public AI deployments—paints a clear divide between success stories and stalled projects.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

what do you think an autopilot is?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    A finely refined model based on an actual understanding of physics and not a glorified Markov chain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    No, it does not.

    A deterministic, narrow algorithm that solves exactly one problem is not an AI. Otherwise Pythagoras would count as AI, or any other mathematical formula for that matter.

    Intelligence, even in terms of AI, means being able to solve new problems. An autopilot can't do anything else than piloting a specific aircraft - and that's a good thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Well, I guess I do. AI marketing has ruined the meaning of the word to the extent that an if statement is "AI".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    Because they are wrong. Airplane Autopilot is not "one model", it's a complex set of systems that take actions based on a trained model. The training of that model used standard ML practices. Sure, it's a base algorithm, but it follows the same principles. That's textbook AI.

    No one would have debated this pre-LLM. That being said, if I was in the industry, I'd be calling it an algorithm instead of AI, because those out of the know, well, won't get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Intelligence, even in terms of AI, means being able to solve new problems.

    I’d argue that an artificial intelligence is (usually computational) a system that can mimic an specific behavior that we consider intelligent, deterministic or not, like playing chess, writing text, piloting an aircraft, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    And you'd argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence.

    Extend your logic a bit. Playing an instrument requires intelligence. Is a drum computer intelligent? A mechanical music box?

    Yes, the definition of intelligence is vague, but that doesn't mean you can extend it indefinitely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I'm sorry, but that's the worst possible conclusion you can get from that paragraph.

    Again, think your argument to the end. What would not fall under AI in your world? If A* counts, then literally everything with a simple 'if' statement would also count. That's delusional.

    Do actually read the article and the articles linked. Are you really, really implying that a simple math equation, that can be solved by a handful transistors and capacitors if need be, is doing something "typically associated with human intelligence"? Really?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Like, are you seriously saying that everyone in Wikipedia is wrong but you? You’re the only one delusional here.

    Believe or not, a bunch of if statements can mimic intelligent behavior, again, not like it’s intelligent, it looks like which is the whole point (that you obviously missed out)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    No, I'm saying you're wrong in your understanding of Wikipedia.

    Also, I did not miss anything out, your self defined definition is simply so broad that it's meaningless. Again, what is not AI following your definition? An if statement does not mimic intelligence, especially not human intelligence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I wanna point out three things:

    1. How can you tell someone is wrong when you have no idea?
    2. I think you missed the point, I said artificial intelligence, not intelligence as a whole.
    3. Yes, playing an instrument in a way that makes sense requires certain degree of intelligence, the music box inherently is not intelligent, but intelligence was required to build it.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    1. That's a weak argument without substance. "No, you!" is not exactly a good counter.

    2. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).

    3. That's a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent. The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago
    1. That's a weak argument without substance. "No, you!" is not exactly a good counter.

    Wdym? Can you elaborate on that? That’s literally your own argument, you just said And you'd argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence., then you didn’t explain why nor give a definition that matches your vision of artificial intelligence, you’re just saying someone is wrong without founding your reasoning.

    1. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).

    Again, how that refutes my own argument? Care to elaborate?

    1. That's a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent.

    Yes, it is, but you kept using it to “prove” your point.

    The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.

    Can you point out what is and why’s bad or worrying? Like I think we’re not in the same page

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent