HN Explorer

14 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 34.1 ms ] thread
Etheryte
> Researchers at MIT published a report showing that 95% of the generative AI programs launched by companies failed to do the main thing they were intended for

I think everyone had a gut feel for something along those lines, but those numbers are even starker than I would've imagined. Granted, many (most?) people trying to vibe code full apps don't know much about building software, so they're bound to struggle to get it to do what they want. But this quote is about companies and code they've actually put into production. Don't get me wrong, I've vibe coded a bunch of utilities that I now use daily, but 95% is way higher than I would've expected.

Traubenfuchs
What will we do with all the datacenters once the subsidies for AI usage will disappear?
sails
> Some large companies’ pilots and younger startups are really excelling with generative AI,” … “It’s because they pick one pain point, execute well, and partner smartly with companies who use their tools,”

Everyone victory lapping this as a grand failure should pay attention to the above snippet.

tra3
I can’t help but feel like the hype generators don’t use the tech themselves. I can contrast this with crypto as a recent example. Sure there were some interesting tidbits there, but I just didn’t see the appeal.

With llms the changes are transformative. I’m trying to learn 3d modeling and chatgpt just gave me a passable sketch for what I had in my mind. So much better than googling for 2 hours. Is the cooling off because industry leadership promised agi last year and it’s not here yet?

GaggiX
>technology that has never proven its worth outside of specious hype

Reading stuff like this makes me question the entirety of the article.

mrkramer
>Researchers at MIT published a report showing that 95% of the generative AI programs launched by companies failed to do the main thing they were intended for — ginning up more revenue.

AI startups were meant to solve problems in novel ways not to amass revenue.

kh_hk
This just feels again like the powers that be trying to bring down wages to "correct" after the recent astroturfing.
meindnoch
Shorting NVDA with 50x leverage.
ml-anon
And yet Google is absolutely killing it and Meta is posting record numbers both attributing a massive amount of current and projected revenue to AI.

Meta just spent billions to get a B team of AI researchers. The cream of the crop couldn’t be persuaded with 8-10 figure comp packages.

This article is absolute garbage.

zarzavat
I'm going to be contrarian-contrarian. I don't buy the crash talk. This is just journalists needing to justify their own existence.

HN is full of articles about coding agents in a way it wasn't a few months ago.

What is overhyped is OpenAI. They don't have any moat. Why use an OpenAI model when you could use Claude or Qwen?

laincide
I find it increasingly annoying to watch how the AI bubble hasn't burst and is currently shifting the entire economic paradigm while we get a constant stream of articles about how "actually AI flopped and it's all over guys, the show is finished pack up". Jesus, it's like worse than if just one or the other was happening.
dang
When was the last time that a single study produced this much media?

Edit: I mean the one discussed here, and in countless other recently submitted articles:

95% of Companies See 'Zero Return' on $30B Generative AI Spend - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44974104 - Aug 2025 (413 comments)

95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing – MIT report - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44941118 - Aug 2025 (167 comments)

95 per cent of organisations are getting zero return from AI according to MIT - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44956648 - Aug 2025 (14 comments)