A new survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and reported on by Apolloseems to show that large companies may be tapping the brakes on AI. Large companies (defined as having more than 250 employees) have reduced their AI usage, according to the data (click to expand the Tweet below). The slowdown started in June, when it was at roughly 13.5%, slipping to about 12% at the end of August. Most other lines, representing companies with fewer employees, are also at a decline, with some still increasing.

  • underline960@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Isn’t that the case with a lot of modern tech?

    I vaguely recall Spotify and Uber being criticized relying on the “get big first and figure out how to monetize later” model.

    (Not defending them, just wondering what’s different about AI.)

    • khornechips@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Spotify is a music streaming service with subscription fees generating recurring revenue, it would be fine in a world without an investor class obsessed with infinite growth. Uber is to taxis what crypto is to banks, essentially exploiting a gap in regulations to undercut an existing market.

      “AI” is a solution desperately looking for a problem to justify all the money and resources being wasted on it.

      • underline960@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        What are you talking about? ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc. all have “subscription fees generating recurring revenue” and are famously “exploiting a gap in regulations to undercut an existing market.”

        Uber took 15 years to become profitable, and Spotify took 18 years.

        Again, I’m not defending any of them (they all exploit the people who make their service work), but so far AI seems to be going down the same road.

        • khornechips@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Spotify provides a real, tangible service. I pay for access to music I get access to music.

          What service does an LLM actually provide? They can’t be relied on for accurate information, they can’t reason, the only thing they seem to be able to do is psychologically manipulate their users. That makes money now, but in six months? A year? We’re already seeing usage fall despite some of the wealthiest companies on the planet burning unfathomable amounts of money.

          • underline960@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            “I pay for access to music I get access to music.” And with ChatGPT, you pay for access to an LLM, and you get access to an LLM.

            Just because you personally don’t value that as a service doesn’t inherently invalidate it as a business model, now or in the future.

            Netflix lost subscribers in 2011 and 2022, that didn’t kill the company. Uber stock tumbled during the pandemic and again in 2022. In 2023, Wired was writing about how “despite its popularity… [Spotify] has long struggled to turn consistent profits.”

            This is a whole wave of companies where the survivors seem financially stable now, but had a long history of being propped up by venture capital and having an unclear path to profitability.

            The only thing you’ve successfully shown is different so far is that you don’t think it’s a real service.

            I generally agree, but I still don’t see anything that differentiates its trajectory from the Spotifys, Ubers, and Netflixes of the world.