A historical productivity paradox showed massive computing advances without corresponding output-per-worker gains. Generative AI adoption is now widespread, with 45.6% of workers using A.I. tools in a recent survey. Despite substantial enterprise investment—estimated at $30–$40 billion—a study associated with M.I.T.'s Media Lab finds 95% of organizations report no return. The study examined over 300 public A.I. initiatives and interviewed more than 50 executives. Success was defined as deployment beyond pilot phase with measurable financial return or productivity gain after six months. Only a small share of integrated pilots deliver millions in value.
In a 1987 article in the Times Book Review, Robert Solow, a Nobel-winning economist at M.I.T., commented, "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." Despite massive increases in computing power and the rising popularity of personal computers, government figures showed that over-all output per worker, a key determinant of wages and living standards, had stagnated for more than a decade.
According to a recent survey carried out by economists at Stanford, Clemson, and the World Bank, in June and July of this year, almost half of all workers—45.6 per cent, to be precise—were using A.I. tools. And yet, a new study, from a team of researchers associated with M.I.T.'s Media Lab, reports, "Despite $30 - $40 billion in enterprise investment into GenAI, this report uncovers a surprising result in that 95% of organizations are getting zero return."
The study's authors examined more than three hundred public A.I. initiatives and announcements, and interviewed more than fifty company executives. They defined a successful A.I. investment as one that had been deployed beyond the pilot phase and had generated some measurable financial return or marked gain in productivity after six months. "Just 5% integrated AI pilots are extracting millions in value, while
Collection
[
|
...
]