That experience taught me one lesson businesses keep ignoring. The most advanced AI is rarely the most cost-effective. Yet companies are pouring money into the newest, most complex models when simpler tools would do the job.
Most of us will never sign an AI contract, but our pensions and savings are funding these choices. If we want to deflate the AI bubble before it bursts, that has to change. The scale is hard to ignore.
Data from the Kobeissi Letter shows that AI-linked stocks now account for 45 percent of the S&P 500’s total market cap. This share has risen by 20 percentage points since late 2022. One Los Angeles County pension fund estimates that 8-19 percent of its portfolio may be exposed to AI.
A considerable amount of our savings now depends on whether AI spending delivers. Anyone with a pension should be paying attention. Many organizations now choose AI to look impressive rather than to solve a real problem.
One MIT study found that 95 percent of organizations saw no measurable return on generative AI, despite $30 billion to $40 billion in enterprise spending. I don’t think that gap reflects the technology. It reflects how the technology is chosen.
Too often, the decision starts with the newest tool on the market rather than the job that needs doing. Many leaders invest in AI capacity they don't need. The most advanced models do not always mean the best results.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
