I think it's true that AI does deliver real value. It's helped me understand domains quickly, be a better google search, given me code snippets and found obscure bugs, etc. In that regard, it's a positive on the world.

I also think it's true that AI is nowhere near AGI level. It's definitely not currently capable of doing my job, not by a long shot.

I also think that, throwing trillions of dollars at AI for a "a better google search, code snippet generator, and obscure bug finder" is a contentious question, and a lot of people oppose it for that reason.

I personally still think it's kind of crazy we have a technology to do things that we didn't have just ~2 years before, even if it just stagnates right here. Still going to be using it every day, even if I admittedly hate a lot of parts of it (for example, "thinking models" get stuck in local minima way too quickly).

At the same time, don't know if it's worth trillions of dollars, at least right now.

So all claims on this thread can be very much true at the same time, just depends on your perspective.

I have my criticisms of LLM's, but anyone in 2025 trying to sell you AGI is selling you a bridge made of snake oil. The aspect of the job market won't even be the biggest question the day we truly achieve AGI.

>At the same time, don't know if it's worth trillions of dollars, at least right now.

The revenue numbers sure don't think so. And I don't think this economy can support "trillions" of spending even if it wanted to. That's why the bubble will pop, IMO.

That report also mentions individual employees using their own personal subscriptions for work, and points to it as a good model for organizations to use when rolling out the tech (i.e. just make the tools available and encourage/teach staff how they work). That sure doesn’t make it sound like “zero return” is a permanent state.

Ah yes, the study that everyone posts but nobody reads

>Behind the disappointing enterprise deployment numbers lies a surprising reality: AI is already transforming work, just not through official channels. Our research uncovered a thriving "shadow AI economy" where employees use personal ChatGPT accounts, Claude subscriptions, and other consumer tools to automate significant portions of their jobs, often without IT knowledge or approval.

>The scale is remarkable. While only 40% of companies say they purchased an official LLM subscription, workers from over 90% of the companies we surveyed reported regular use of personal AI tools for work tasks. In fact, almost every single person used an LLM in some form for their work.

IT nightmares aside, this only makes the issue worse, if +it is so widespread to the point where some are sneaking to use it personally, and they still can't make a business more productive/profitable: well, that bubble is awfully wobbly

No. The aggregate is useless. What matters is the 5% that have positive return.

In the first few years of any new technology, most people investing it lose money because the transition and experimentation costs are higher than the initial returns.

But as time goes on, best practices emerge, investments get paid off, and steady profits emerge.

On the provider end, yes. Not on the consumer end.

These are business customers buying a consumer-facing product.

No, on the consumer end. The whole point is that the 5% profitable is going to turn to 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% as companies work out how to use AI profitably.

It always takes time to figure out how to profitably utilize any technological improvement and pay off the upfront costs. This is no exception.

Can we both at least agree that 95% of comapnies investing and failing in a technology with 400b+ dollars of investment constitutes a bubble popping? I pretty much agree with you otherwise and that is what the article comes down to as well:

>I believe both sides are right. Like the 19th century railroads and the 20th century broadband Internet build-out, AI will rise first, crash second, and eventually change the world.