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.

  • leisesprecher@feddit.org
    22·
    2 days ago

    And you’d argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence.

    Extend your logic a bit. Playing an instrument requires intelligence. Is a drum computer intelligent? A mechanical music box?

    Yes, the definition of intelligence is vague, but that doesn’t mean you can extend it indefinitely.

    • MrLLM@ani.socialEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      I wanna point out three things:

      1. How can you tell someone is wrong when you have no idea?
      2. I think you missed the point, I said artificial intelligence, not intelligence as a whole.
      3. Yes, playing an instrument in a way that makes sense requires certain degree of intelligence, the music box inherently is not intelligent, but intelligence was required to build it.
      • leisesprecher@feddit.org
        1·
        2 days ago

        1. That’s a weak argument without substance. “No, you!” is not exactly a good counter.

        2. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).

        3. That’s a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent. The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.

        • MrLLM@ani.socialEnglish
          1·
          16 hours ago
          1. That’s a weak argument without substance. “No, you!” is not exactly a good counter.

          Wdym? Can you elaborate on that? That’s literally your own argument, you just said And you’d argue wrong here, that is simply not the definition of intelligence., then you didn’t explain why nor give a definition that matches your vision of artificial intelligence, you’re just saying someone is wrong without founding your reasoning.

          1. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about, which refutes your argument in 1).

          Again, how that refutes my own argument? Care to elaborate?

          1. That’s a whole different discussion. That intelligence is required to build something has nothing to do with whether the product is intelligent.

          Yes, it is, but you kept using it to “prove” your point.

          The fact that you manage to mangle that up so bad is almost worrying.

          Can you point out what is and why’s bad or worrying? Like I think we’re not in the same page

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      2 days ago

      I don’t know where you’re getting your definitions but you are wrong.

      Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making.

      For example, the humble A* Pathfinding Algorithm falls under the domain of AI, despite it being a relatively simple and common process. Even fixing small problems is still considered problem solving.

      • leisesprecher@feddit.org
        21·
        2 days ago

        I’m sorry, but that’s the worst possible conclusion you can get from that paragraph.

        Again, think your argument to the end. What would not fall under AI in your world? If A* counts, then literally everything with a simple ‘if’ statement would also count. That’s delusional.

        Do actually read the article and the articles linked. Are you really, really implying that a simple math equation, that can be solved by a handful transistors and capacitors if need be, is doing something “typically associated with human intelligence”? Really?

        • MrLLM@ani.socialEnglish
          12·
          1 day ago

          Like, are you seriously saying that everyone in Wikipedia is wrong but you? You’re the only one delusional here.

          Believe or not, a bunch of if statements can mimic intelligent behavior, again, not like it’s intelligent, it looks like which is the whole point (that you obviously missed out)

          • leisesprecher@feddit.org
            11·
            1 day ago

            No, I’m saying you’re wrong in your understanding of Wikipedia.

            Also, I did not miss anything out, your self defined definition is simply so broad that it’s meaningless. Again, what is not AI following your definition? An if statement does not mimic intelligence, especially not human intelligence.