When M.I.T.'s Media Lab first posted this report, it was found at https://nanda.media.mit.edu/ai_report_2025.pdf. The Media Lab subsequently made the report unavailable after many publications gained access, but did not issue a retraction nor a reason for its unavailability. Unfortunately the press focused on the sensational aspects of the report, i.e., the high failure rate for pilot projects. The chatbot's summary provides a more solution-oriented perspective.
- Text of MLQ.ai copy
a) Billions Spent, Almost No Return
Despite $30–40B in enterprise GenAI investment, 95% of pilots deliver no measurable P&L impact. Only 5% succeed, usually by tightly integrating into workflows and learning over time.
- Widespread use of ChatGPT/Copilot boosts individual productivity, but not enterprise transformation.
- Enterprise-grade pilots stall at integration and rarely scale past demos .
Over 80% of firms have piloted GenAI, but seven of nine industries show no structural change. Only tech and media display disruption patterns like new competitors and shifting workflows.
- Most pilots never progress beyond trials; enterprises run the most but scale the least.
- Mid-market firms convert faster, averaging 90 days pilot-to-production versus 9+ months for enterprises .
c) The Shadow AI Economy
Employees already cross the divide informally: 90% use personal AI tools at work, vs. only 40% of firms with official subscriptions. Shadow AI often delivers more ROI than sanctioned programs.
- Workers rely on ChatGPT or Claude daily, while enterprise tools languish.
- Companies beginning to study shadow usage before procurement are seeing better results .
d) The Learning Gap
The root failure isn’t models or regulation — it’s that AI tools don’t learn, adapt, or retain context.
- Generic LLMs win for quick tasks but fail at mission-critical workflows that need memory and adaptability.
- Users trust $20/month tools more than $50,000 enterprise deployments when the latter can’t evolve .
e) Crossing the Gap with BPO
"BPO" stands for Business Process Outsourcing, wherein a company contracts out non-core work — e.g., call centers, payroll, HR processing, procurement, or document review — to external service providers, often offshore. Winners on both sides share a common playbook: customization + learning + workflow fit.
- Providers succeed by embedding in narrow, high-value tasks (e.g., contract automation, call summarization), then scaling.
- Buyers succeed when they act like BPO clients, demanding measurable ROI, deep integration, and vendor accountability — not just shiny demos.
- Back-office automation (procurement, finance, compliance) quietly delivers the highest ROI, often cutting BPO and agency costs by millions .
-- This story also covered by NY Times, The Verge, Financial Times, Gizmodo, Engadget,
- Text Wired
The U.S. government will invest $8.9 billion into Intel, taking a 9.9% equity stake in the company. The deal combines $5.7 billion from the CHIPS Act and $3.2 billion from the Secure Enclave program.
-
This is an unusual arrangement: rather than subsidies alone, taxpayers now effectively own part of Intel.
-
Trump promoted the deal as a bargain, calling it a “great deal for America” in his White House remarks.
The deal is positioned as part of a broader national strategy to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S.
-
Intel has struggled with market share and manufacturing competitiveness, and U.S. officials see this as a step toward supply chain independence.
-
The focus is also political: Trump has emphasized reducing ties to China across multiple sectors.
Legal experts questioned why the government accepted common stock instead of preferred shares.
-
Preferred shares could have guaranteed dividends and repayment obligations, ensuring taxpayer returns.
-
Critics argue common stock exposes taxpayers to risk if Intel underperforms without guaranteeing direct payback.
-
Some analysts wonder whether Washington will leverage this stake to push industry orders toward Intel, reshaping competition in semiconductors.
-
Others see this as political theater as much as industrial strategy, with Trump using it to frame himself as tough on China and pro-manufacturing.
- Text NY Post
a) AI data centers are driving up energy demand and costs for households.
-
Families in New York and New Jersey are seeing electricity bills spike well beyond predicted increases, partly because AI data centers from Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are competing for grid supply.
-
With nuclear plants shut down and expensive green mandates in place, grid strain is forcing rates higher for ordinary consumers.
-- Example: One NJ resident’s bill jumped from $174 in June to $300 in July. - Supply-demand “market pricing” means data centers’ heavy purchases push rates up for everyone.
b) Grid limitations mean relief is years away, while tech giants secure private deals.
-
Building new power plants takes 5–10 years and billions of dollars, leaving households stuck with short-term pain.
-
Big players are moving to secure nuclear capacity for themselves: Amazon is investing $500M, Google is buying from a nuclear developer, and Microsoft has deals around Three Mile Island.
These moves protect corporations but don’t ease household costs.
c) Consumers are bearing the brunt while policy solutions remain uncertain.
-
Regulators in New York have already approved additional utility rate hikes, with average household costs projected to rise $600 annually within three years.
-
Experts suggest two options: tariffs on data centers or forcing them to procure energy separately, shielding residential users.
Critics warn current policy leaves vulnerable groups—especially those on fixed incomes—choosing between food and electricity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments will be greatly appreciated ... Or just click the "Like" button above the comments section if you enjoyed this blog note.