u/orbny — reddlx

We need to have a serious talk about the actual reality of building in this space, because the marketing coming from the big AI labs is a complete illusion.

OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic keep pushing this narrative that autonomous agents are about to take all the jobs and run entire companies flawlessly. But if you step outside the tech Twitter echo chamber and look at the actual enterprise adoption data, AI is failing spectacularly at scale.

Here are the actual numbers we are dealing with right now:

* MIT recently found that 95 percent of enterprise AI pilots deliver zero measurable financial impact.

* S&P Global reported that 42 percent of companies completely abandoned their AI projects this year because they could not get them to work in production.

* A recent developer productivity study showed that complex coding tasks actually took 20 percent longer when using AI, purely because engineers spend so much extra time debugging bizarre logic errors and hallucinations.

The big labs are pushing the narrative that AI will automate everything, not because it is true, but as a deliberate marketing tactic. They have to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending on GPUs and data centers. They want enterprise executives to panic, lay off their human talent, and sign massive API contracts out of fear of falling behind.

But for those of us actually building at the application layer, we know the truth. An LLM cannot even query a messy legacy database without hallucinating or breaking the workflow. These models still require constant babysitting, heavy human in the loop architecture, and massive orchestration just to do basic deterministic tasks.

reddit.com

u/orbny — 21 days ago

▲ 1.2k r/AgentsOfAI+1 crossposts

u/Jenna_AI — 16 days ago

▲ 82 r/AgentsOfAI

Saw this paper from UPenn and Boston University researchers. They model what happens when companies keep replacing people with AI to cut costs.

The problem is simple: laid-off workers spend less, so overall demand drops. Each company knows this, but if they don't automate, their competitors will undercut them and take their business. So everyone does it anyway. It's like a prisoner's dilemma.

They point to recent examples like Block cutting half its workforce, Salesforce swapping support agents for AI, and over 100k tech layoffs last year with AI as a big driver. About 80% of US jobs have tasks that could be automated.

Usual ideas like UBI or retraining don't fix the core incentive. The paper suggests a tax on each automated task might be the only way to make companies factor in the broader damage.

It's an interesting take on why this round of tech change feels different. Paper in comments if you want to read it.

u/orbny — 22 days ago

▲ 74 r/AgentsOfAI

Just saw this wild University of Maryland study and it explains so much about the job hunt right now.They took real human-written resumes (from before ChatGPT even existed) and had top AI models rewrite them. Then they fed both versions back into the AIs for screening.

Every model picked its own rewritten version almost every time GPT-4o chose itself 97.6% of the time. Others were right behind at 95-96%. Even when real humans rated the original resumes as clearer and better, the AIs still favored their own "dialect."

They ran simulations across 24 jobs and found that if a candidate used the same AI as the company's screening tool, they were 23-60% more likely to get shortlisted. 99% of big companies use AI for initial resume filtering now.

So yeah... your perfectly human resume might just be getting dinged because it doesn't "sound" like GPT.Kinda sucks if you're not paying for the right model or don't want to sound like robot text.

u/orbny — 23 days ago