There’s a stark difference in success rates between companies that purchase AI tools from vendors and those that build them internally.

Despite the rush to integrate powerful new models, about 5% of AI pilot programs achieve rapid revenue acceleration; the vast majority stall, delivering little to no measurable impact on P&L.

The research—based on 150 interviews with leaders, a survey of 350 employees, and an analysis of 300 public AI deployments—paints a clear divide between success stories and stalled projects.

  • ameancow@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    2 days ago

    I know you’re joking, but for those who don’t, the headline means “startups” and they just wanted to avoid the overused term.

    Also, yeah actually it’s far easier to have an AI fly a plane than a car. No obstacles, no sudden changes, no little kids running out from behind a cloud-bank, no traffic except during takeoff and landing, and those systems also can be automated more and more.

    In fact, we don’t need “AI” we’ve had autopilots that handle almost all aspects of flight for decades now. The FA-18 Hornet famously has hand-grips by the seat that the pilot is supposed to hold onto during takeoff so they don’t accidentally touch a control.

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      Conversely, AI running ATC would be a very good thing. To a point.

      It’s been technically feasible for a while to handle 99% of what an ATC does automatically. The problem is that you really want a human to step in on those 1% of situations where things get complicated and really dangerous. Except, the human won’t have their skills sharpened through constant use unless they’re handling at least some of the regular traffic.

      Trick has been to have the AI do, say, 70% of the job, but having a human step in sometimes. Deciding on when to have a human step in is the hard problem.