- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Zero sounds a bit high.
Majority of ML/Software Engineers report zero CEOs listened to them about it.
Seems like the bubble’s gonna burst soon.
Eventually but I give it at least 1-2 years more. Too much big money has been put into this and they won’t just let their investment die without a fight
The bubble is propped up by governments.
They don’t need “as good as an employee but faster”. They just need “faster”, so they can process gathered data on an enormous scale to filter out the “potentially good” from the “not worth looking at”.
Then they use employees to actually assess the “potentially good” data.Seriously, intelligence agencies don’t need “good ai”, they just need “good enough ai”.
And they have that already.I guess that strongly depends on the use case.
In programming, they are far from good enough.
In article writing too. Now we can distinguish quickly a text written by a human from one written by a large language model.
If you look at the numbers in the article the majority “broke even” but significantly more companies experienced gains from AI than experienced losses from AI. The headline is crafted to bait clicks.
Huh, I read the article and I don’t see anything about more companies experiencing gains than losses. Are you talking about a different article than https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/20/pwc_ai_ceo_survey/?
Only 12 percent reported both lower costs and higher revenue, while 56 percent saw neither benefit. Twenty-six percent saw reduced costs, but nearly as many experienced cost increases.
This is the closest thing I saw.
They were referring to the original article that The Register is citing: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html
Scroll down to the 3x3 grid, and you will see that the percentages in the green squares (corresponding to benefits) add up to more than the percentages in the red squares (corresponding to drawbacks). You can see from this that The Register cherry-picked the numbers to tell a particular narrative. For the sake of illustration, were one trying to push the opposite narrative, one could just as accurately have said that only 13% of companies experienced worse outcomes as a result of using AI, whereas 87% experienced neutral or better outcomes!
(Just to be clear, though, I do think that a survey of the prevailing attitudes of CEOs is not a great way of obtaining an objective metric for anything other than the prevailing attitude of CEOs.)
Hey, thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it!
Picture for people who do not want to click the link.
Am I just colorblind? I see 0%, 42%, 12%, and 1% in red. I see 13%, 12%, and 8% in green. You would have to remove “no change” in 42% for your assertion about green square percentages summing to more than red square percentages; though it does keep your point about drawback vs. benefit percentage true since “no change” is neither good nor bad.
No shit Sherlock!!!
Edit: This one bears mention: “Despite the CEOs’ repsonses, PwC concludes more investment is required.” Executives are fucking morons.
They’re getting a cut.
They replaced the wrong things with AI. It should replace management level and above, not the people that actually provide the company value.
