Easy, just lie to companies and say it will drastically reduce labor costs, allowing them to put more in their own pockets. It has worked this far.
They should know. After all, they sell highly priced McKinsey advice with no measurable benefits.
… thought this was an Onion type article.
…sigh…
Not the onion.
Now I read reporting that some US-bubble may bust.
Their only growth is seemingly purely virtual, again.
Oh I mean here’s the simple version:
Depending on which metric you prefer, something between 70% to 90% of last 6 to 12 month growth in US stocks is from AI companies of companies with huge drives for AI.
The financiers knew the housing bubble was going to pop (as it currently is), so, they blew a new one, to keep the charade going a bit longer.
This new bubble is of course even more obviously absurd.
It could pop at literally any moment, and then Wall Street will join Main Street in the currently ongoing Second Great Depression.
There you go, theres my best “tldr: the economy these days” from an econometrician who has been unemployed so long I am not even in the labor force, but I don’t want to start rambling about how all our econ stats are bullshit.
I accept this.
Well thank you =D
So the AI vendors are trying to sell something that has no apparent benefit to the company and comes at an increased cost that may increase more in the future, that also takes three times more money to properly deploy, and even then nobody knows if it will do anything.
It’s a nice scam, and I appreciate them laying it out so simply. But what are the AI vendors going to do? They can’t actually write contracts that promise things, not if their company plans to be around in 5 years, so the best they can do is set up shell companies or try to use the current hype as an excuse to get quick sales so they can make their Buck before everyone realizes it’s snake oil.
The problem is, this is a mainstream article explaining how it’s snake oil, so almost everyone realizes it by now. Maybe you can get the company president to authorize a purchase because he gets some indirect kickback from his friend’s AI company, but that’s the same kind of dirt we’ve always had in society.
I just didn’t get what you titled this post from the actual article. The article just says McKinsey found only 30% of AI deployments they looked at actually saw a return on investment and that AI vendors have to figure that out in order to continue to sell AI services.
It’s literally the title of the linked article?
OP didn’t do the clickbait title, The Register did
From this? :
Software vendors keen to monetize AI should tread cautiously, since they risk inflating costs for their customers without delivering any promised benefits such as reducing employee head count.
The title that I am seeing is this:
“McKinsey wonders how to sell AI apps with no measurable benefits”
with the subtitle:
“Consultant says software vendors risk hiking prices without cutting costs or boosting productivity”
This is The Register.
That is exactly the sort of title one should expect, from them.
The quote you’ve got “Software vendors…” isn’t the title of the article, it is the 1st-paragraph’s 1st sentence.
The OP is correct.
_ /\ _
