chobeat@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.ml · 10 days agoMIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failingfortune.comexternal-linkmessage-square6fedilinkarrow-up189arrow-down12cross-posted to: technology@lemmy.mltechnology@beehaw.orgtechnology@lemmy.world
arrow-up187arrow-down1external-linkMIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failingfortune.comchobeat@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.ml · 10 days agomessage-square6fedilinkcross-posted to: technology@lemmy.mltechnology@beehaw.orgtechnology@lemmy.world
minus-squareThirdConsul@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-210 days agoThey seem to be focusing very much on NOT using LLMs yourself, but buying an SaaS offering providing LLM instead. 95% are failing, and: Companies surveyed were often hesitant to share failure rates, Oh. So it’s at least 95%? Edit: Source is MIT Nanda project - isn’t that an university project? I can’t access it, can anyone share? I’m curious about the methodology and data set
minus-squareZerush@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·10 days agoHere you can access some material, but the article in question is for members only, it’s a document stored in Google Docs https://nanda.media.mit.edu/ You can find other pages with this article, but all these pointing to Fortune as source.
They seem to be focusing very much on NOT using LLMs yourself, but buying an SaaS offering providing LLM instead.
95% are failing, and:
Oh. So it’s at least 95%?
Edit:
Source is MIT Nanda project - isn’t that an university project? I can’t access it, can anyone share? I’m curious about the methodology and data set
Here you can access some material, but the article in question is for members only, it’s a document stored in Google Docs
https://nanda.media.mit.edu/
You can find other pages with this article, but all these pointing to Fortune as source.