Unfortunately this article isn’t really one of them. It spends most of its time defending the AI status quo. Ex:
. . . although Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong noted this week that the MIT report “reads like something given away on the ‘research’ page of a large consultancy.” Its conclusions are fairly obvious, he said: People like ChatGPT for basic tasks and hate complicated enterprise systems, and companies that try to build their own AI usually fail.
The study attributes these failures to implementation problems rather than model quality. “The core issue? Not the quality of the AI models, but the ‘learning gap’ for both tools and organizations,” Fortune wrote about the study. Purchased AI tools succeed 67 percent of the time, while internally built systems succeed only one-third as often. This isn’t necessarily an indictment of AI technology as a whole—it’s potentially an indictment of corporate IT departments thinking they can out-engineer existing applications from AI service providers like OpenAI.
And who is pushing the idea that AI is a magic money printer for businesses? It could never be OpenAI and their ilk, they’re too honest for that! Shoves massive piles of stolen training data under the couch
Unfortunately this article isn’t really one of them. It spends most of its time defending the AI status quo. Ex:
*eyeroll*
And who is pushing the idea that AI is a magic money printer for businesses? It could never be OpenAI and their ilk, they’re too honest for that! Shoves massive piles of stolen training data under the couch