Does anybody have the original study? I tried to find it but the link is dead ( looks like NANDA pulled it )
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
1186 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
74359 readers
3078 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1186
95% of Companies See ‘Zero Return’ on $30 Billion Generative AI Spend, MIT Report Finds
(thedailyadda.com)
hello, welcome to taco bell, i am your new ai order specialist. would you like to try a combo of the new dorito blast mtw dew crunchwrap?
spoken at a rate of 5 words a minute to every single person in the drive thru. the old people have no idea how to order with a computer using key words.
Pets.com all over again
Good
It's not about return it's about addiction. Companies that invest in AI have money.
Yeah. No shit. wtf did they think was gonna generate returns? They wanna run ads in the middle if responses?
I'm not sure they were expecting returns. Just afraid that if other companies had AI, they might lose business to them. Except of course a lot of people (or at least I) avoid anything with AI and mistrust its results.
It is how its done today.
Every semi-big or big corpos gamble their money trying to be the one coming on top and capture the market.
So it is not surprising to see that.
Losing money is a called going into debt, not just zero returns.
Douse it with gasoline. Burn it with fire.
The link in the article to the MIT report doesn't directly link to any report. I wouldn't trust this article until the report is accessible and verifiable.