All this article is showing is that a large number of CEOs are swayed by hype and make poor decisions. What other poor decisions are they making all the time?

I am thoroughly convinced that the MBA is the most useless degree ever because when you look at how large businesses run so poorly, and are run by MBAs.

The CEOs are investing in AI to put on airs for investors and inflate their company valuation, often pissing off customers and losing sales in the process. It’s evidently a worthy trade-off to make number go up.

CEOs keep trying to shoehorn AI into replacing skilled labor positions, when the positions that AI could easily replace are obviously CEOs and the rest of the executive suite. Obviously they are so shit at their jobs that they can't research well enough to make informed decisions about tech implementation.

Other than being a money vacuum, there isn't a single thing that CEOs do better than an LLM. Replace them, give their fat paychecks to the employees, and watch the company do better than it ever has.

I hate AI, but it's still preferable to sociopath capitalists.

~40℅ seeing a positive payoff is surprisingly high

I tend to be skeptical of the reactionary AI is always slop trend. I'm sympathetic to it because it's a response to the hype machine that knows no prudence. But damn when you say

"Your next move: Build AI foundations. Our work with organisations confirms mounting evidence that isolated, tactical AI projects often don’t deliver measurable value. Tangible returns come from enterprise-scale deployment consistent with company business strategy."

I read this as marketing. What's the evidence you've been gathering? Why do you believe your projects are applicable to all companies? What happens if we invest and it doesn't help like you say it will?

This is like saying the solution to your relationship troubles is having a baby. No... No this is not the solution. Make my smaller projects work and show return and then we talk larger commitments.

The article is sort of interesting and I hope people take a gander rather than headline skim to affirm a bias and internally bridge the narrative gap.

The article says the report blames the lack of payoff on lack of implementation rather than on AI tooling itself. That is, companies need to fully integrate with AI because piecemeal isn't working. Quite the opposite of what many people commenting here are assuming the takeaway was.

That means even more bad times ahead for people who wake up every morning and make the world happen and society function. Assuming PwC's advice is taken to heart and job displacement remains the primary motivator rather than force multiplication.

Yeah, that tends to happen when you blow billions on snake oil.

If I were to take a significant amount of the budget and totally lose my ass I would get fired. These people have no consequences. Meritocracy my ass.

Great, can we unleash the bonkers insane computing power for something useful like simulating matter to understand aging?

Also, most CEOs will suffer no negative consequences for their dumb decisions, and will probably even get multi-million dollar bonuses regardless.

Just keep sucking up power and hardware.

so more layoffs until they break even on the new power bill

good…

Shouldn't that be a net negative because of loss of knowledge and talent during ai-inspired layoffs?

"Were not beating the AI hard enough! Apply the lash!"

Let's use AI to replace the missing CEOs when we compost billionaires!!!

So what has effectively happened? Just... Ruined a bunch of stuff and destabilized a bunch of society and lined the pockets of a few companies?