Honestly, it's just shouting into an echo chamber. They call it organizational failure, but it's really just 'come on, my side.' A consultant who does that is untrustworthy. It means they have no metrics.

Same goes for their 0% claim. It's overgeneralization, isn't it?

So why did they fail, what went wrong, and how should these AI projects be analyzed—and by what metrics? They skip all that and just throw out a single KPI. What insight does that offer?

Honestly, there are a lot of people on HN who just shout that AI is useless because their own jobs are at risk. That's an undeniable fact. In my country, Korea, we say 'like a pheasant hiding its head in the ground.' It means denying reality and lacking self-awareness.

I've also seen many failed AI projects due to a lack of proper evaluation of AI capabilities. I don't want to deny that premise.

But if you're going to make that argument, you need to describe why they failed. There's none of that here, just this:

'We're going to opt out because it looks like AI projects will fail.'

They package it as being cautious, but when you peel back the wrapper, it really means:

'We can't keep up with the AI trend. And we can't tell what works and what doesn't.'

Sure, AI has a bubble. No one can deny that. But separate from that, it is useful. Do you really think millions of consumers would stick around for something useless?

Social problems are arising, and people are losing jobs because of it. Let's think the other way around. It doesn't make sense for people to lose jobs over something that's truly useless and wrong.

People are losing jobs because it's useful and valuable. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the problem is 'over-application' rather than the thing itself being bad? In other words, we could say that it's being valued more than it's worth. But this argument just says it's bad, period, with no nuance. I can't trust someone who talks like that.

AI writing, if you give it a red-team prompt, can at least refine the surface of counterarguments to your claim. But this—from overgeneralization to extremes—is a textbook example of bad human writing