31
posted ago by RedPillQ17 ago by RedPillQ17 +31 / -0

Per a new MIT report (reported by Fortune): "95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing" - that's the Fortune headline anyway. The actual MIT report is apparently behind a firewall. But I read the Fortune article just to see what the research study supposedly says.

The headline grabbed my attention, with me initially thinking, "Oh, yay - there's some kind of research study to prove that AI is over-hyped and that it's not the 'miracle drug' that businesses/employers thought it was going to be. Maybe the message coming out of this study will be that companies should stop down-sizing their workforce (laying off people) and instead they should resume hiring REAL PEOPLE and stop wasting their time and money investing in their obsession with AI." That's what went through my mind at first glance from the article's headline at least.

But then I read the actual article (which somewhat contradicted what the headline itself implied) and I got more concerned. Since "Fortune" magazine seems like a Deep State rag to me, yet is somehow widely 'respected' in the business/corporate community, I wanted to see what narrative they're pushing with all this.

According to this new report from MIT, companies are failing to accelerate business efficiencies/processes/profits when trying to build their own AI system IN-HOUSE, but they ARE supposedly succeeding when they use established, OUTSOURCED AI tools (that someone ELSE owns/controls).

Reading between the lines, it sounds like this narrative push (especially coming from pedestal-sitting "MIT") could simply serve as justification for adopting 'established/centralized/sophisticated AI' systems (controlled by big tech) that everyone gets led into like sheep 'because they're the only ones that are effective.' I don't like where this is heading - at all! :-(

https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generative-ai-pilots-at-companies-failing-cfo/