I'm not saying AI is living up to the "hype" or "expectations" - it would largely depend on how you quantify the hype or expectations. Most rational would be to consider how much money is funneled into vs how much ROI would it have within some time range in the future, e.g. 10 years. A wise investor would look ahead 10 years, balance benefits, potential and risks. By that metric it could be too early to say if it's paying off even if it's objectively clearly bringing 10x more expense than income.

But the metrics or facts without context or deeper explanations also don't mean much in that article.

> 95% of AI pilots didn’t increase a company’s profit or productivity

If 5% do that could very well be enough to justify it, depending on for which reasons and after how much time the pilots are failing. It's widely touted that only 5% of start ups succeed, yet start ups overall have brought immense technological and productivity gains to the World. You could live in a hut and be happy, and argue none of it is needed, but none the less the gains by some metrics are here, despite 95% failing.

The article throws out numbers to make a point that it wanted to make, but fails to account for any nuance.

If there's a promising new tech, it makes sense that there will be many failed attempts to make use of it, and it makes sense a lot of money will be thrown in. If 5% succeed, it takes 1 million to do 1 attempt, but the potential is 1 billion if it succeeds, it's already 50x return.

In my personal experience, if used correctly it increases my own productivity a lot and I've been using AI daily ever since GPT 3.5 release. I would say I use it during most of what I do.

> AI Pullback Has Officially Started

So I'm personally not seeing this at all, based on how much I personally pay for AI, how much I use it, and how I see it iteratively improving, while it's already so useful for me.

We are building and seeing things that weren't realistic or feasible before now.