What about the MIT study that showed 95% of AI initiatives are failing to turn a profit from back in 2025? Have things really changed that drastically in 6 months?
![]()
MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing | Fortune
There’s a stark difference in success rates between companies that purchase AI tools from vendors and those that build them internally.fortune.com
Jamie Dimon lays it all out behind the scenes!!!!!
READ THIS NOW
![]()
Something Big Is Happening
A personal note for non-tech friends and family on what AI is starting to change.shumer.dev

It's contributing greatly to corporate profits.
which is the real reason people are being laid off, to offset the massive investments these corporations have sunk into AI.The Plain Dealer, Cleveland’s largest newspaper, has begun to feature a new byline. On recent articles about an ice carving festival, a medical research discovery and a roaming pack of chicken-slaying dogs, a reporter’s name is paired with the words “Advance Local Express Desk.” It means: This article was drafted by artificial intelligence.
“This article was produced with assistance from AI tools and reviewed by Cleveland.com staff,” reads a note at the bottom of each robot-penned piece, differentiating it from those still written primarily by journalists. The disclosure has done little to stem the backlash that caromed across the news industry after the paper’s editor, Chris Quinn, published a Feb. 14 column lamenting that a fresh-out-of-college job applicant withdrew from a reporting fellowship when they found out the position included no writing — just filing notes to an AI writing tool.
“Artificial intelligence is not bad for newsrooms. It’s the future of them,” Quinn wrote, adding that “by removing writing from reporters’ workloads, we’ve effectively freed up an extra workday for them each week.”
On social media, industry veterans recoiled at the sentiment. Former Financial Times editor Lionel Barber called it “beyond dumb.” Axios reporter Sam Allard defended the applicant for “wanting to be a journalist instead of an AI content farmer.” HuffPost editor Philip Lewis wrote, “An editor for a newspaper encouraging ‘removing writing from reporters’ workloads’ should just resign.”
As once-robust metropolitan newspapers across the country lay off reporters, shutter bureaus and scale back ambitions, the 184-year-old Plain Dealer, known online as Cleveland.com, is at the forefront of an industry-wide push to reimagine journalism for the AI age. Outlets such as the New York Times, the Financial Times and The Washington Post have begun to incorporate the technology into parts of their journalism and experiment with interactive chatbots. But industry experts said the Plain Dealer’s use of AI to write entire news articles takes the paper into mostly uncharted territory.
Several current and former Plain Dealer staffers, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said in interviews that Quinn’s AI initiatives have caused consternation within the newsroom. “It’s existential,” one said about the push to adopt the technology, referring to a fear of technology automating the work of journalists. “You see your own mortality in this.”
No it's notwhich is the real reason people are being laid off, to offset the massive investments these corporations have sunk into AI.
Watch the head count of these companies laying off massive numbers of people in the next 18-36 months, watch them explode again. There are so many examples of poorly vibe coded software, frameworks and tools out there.
A massive vulnerability is going to be exploited in a heavily AI developed piece of software or platform and it's going to scare the sh*t out of the industry and the hiring will pick back up.
AI isn't ready to take over moderate to high skill level jobs.
He said he saw a quote online that’s been sticking in his head, around how for centuries, maybe millennia, humans have learned how to structure society to manage scarcity, and now we have to quickly learn the opposite, managing “abundance.”
Breh the companies have structured the deals in such a way that the "investments" don't even really show up on the corporate balance books. This is why the stocks continue to climb and why openai continues to be able to raise money at valuations approaching 1 trillion. AI may not be taking over high skill jobs, but ultimately those jobs represent a much smaller percentage of the total workforce. It is absolutely taking over many entry level positions
and in areas where the tech is more than likely going to continue improving.
what is this assumption based on? the "improvements" in blockchain / the previous tech hype?The money from all of these jobs not being filled will continue to fuel profits.
It's contributing greatly to corporate profits.
Ultimately AI is "too big to fail."
The companies behind the drive are the largest on the planet.
And as I mentioned a while back, because they dominate the economy, they're able to push these products onto the market whether people really want it or not. This is what's happening with Microsoft CoPilot etc.
The unrealized losses are huge, but not so large that it's going to take the Google's/Amazons of the world down.
