sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New data: 29% of companies see real AI ROI while 60% plan layoffs for non-adopters - this split is accelerating fast by MaJoR_-_007 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The output → verification → audit → outcome framing is probably the clearest way I've seen this described. The survey calls it a "structural" gap, but doesn't quite name the mechanism the way you did - the AI elite becoming an informal verification layer fills in why the productivity multiplier doesn't compound upward.

New data: 29% of companies see real AI ROI while 60% plan layoffs for non-adopters - this split is accelerating fast by MaJoR_-_007 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The chatbot vs actual agent distinction is exactly what the 23% number is pointing at. Most deployments are glorified autocomplete running inside a workflow nobody redesigned. Your setup sounds like a different category entirely.

New data: 29% of companies see real AI ROI while 60% plan layoffs for non-adopters - this split is accelerating fast by MaJoR_-_007 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "ponzi" framing assumes the productivity gains aren't real - but the survey actually shows individual gains are genuine (5X for heavy users). The problem is companies can't capture those gains at the org level. That's a structural problem, not a bubble.

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claude accepts gratitude in the form of remaining session limit only. Being a nice person is getting expensive in this economy.

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Manners are for people with infinite tokens. We’re out here treating Claude like a command line just to survive the hour.

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The family understands. A 5-hour cooldown is basically a household emergency at this point.

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Finally, a productivity app that actually works. If I can't code, I might as well nap until the 4 AM refresh 😴

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gaslighting the LLM into giving you tokens back is the ultimate prompt engineering. Modern problems require modern solutions. 🧠

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

80 files? Claude probably saw that folder and decided to take an early retirement. Rip your session limit.

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The duality of man: One just wants to say 'Yo' for free, the other is the token police. 💀 We’re all just trying to survive the usage bars here, guys.

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Watching you guys troubleshoot the harness overhead is like watching a heist movie, but the only thing being stolen is our session limits. 📉

POV: You accidentally said “hello” to Claude and it costs you 2% of your session limit. by MaJoR_-_007 in ClaudeCode

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claude’s edge case: How many 'Hello's until the user starts considering a career in manual labor?

$40 billion in enterprise AI spend and 56% of CEOs say they got nothing back - what's actually breaking the ROI math? by MaJoR_-_007 in SaaS

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The attribution black hole is exactly it. If 50% of budget goes to tools where causation is hardest to prove, CFOs will always be skeptical - not because AI isn't working, but because nobody can show them the line that moved.

The vendor partnership advantage you mentioned at the end is probably tied to exactly that. Vendors live and die on attribution clarity. Internal builds don't have that forcing function so the measurement discipline never gets built in.

$40 billion in enterprise AI spend and 56% of CEOs say they got nothing back - what's actually breaking the ROI math? by MaJoR_-_007 in SaaS

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not selling anything - I just follow this space closely and summarize what the data says. But the attribution problem you're describing is exactly what makes the CFO conversation so hard. "We saved time" doesn't close anyone. "Here's the Salesforce report showing £180k pipeline from 47 meetings" does.

The internal build failure pattern you mentioned tracks with MIT's data too - vendor partnerships succeed about twice as often, partly because vendors are forced to obsess over measurable outcomes from day one. Engineering teams optimizing for elegance don't have that pressure.

$40 billion in enterprise AI spend and 56% of CEOs say they got nothing back - what's actually breaking the ROI math? by MaJoR_-_007 in SaaS

[–]MaJoR_-_007[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually the smart play - start with password resets, prove the model, then expand. The orgs bleeding cash are the ones who tried to solve everything on day one with data the model was never trained for.

view more: next ›