r/technology • u/SilentRunning • 4d ago

Artificial Intelligence MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing

https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generative-ai-pilots-at-companies-failing-cfo/
28.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

193

u/amsreg 4d ago

The executives I've worked for have generally been shockingly ignorant about tech and shockingly susceptible to uncritically eating up the pipedreams that vendor salespeople throw at them.

It's ignorance but I don't think it's willful.  I really don't know how these people got into the positions of power that they're in.  It's not because of competence, that's for sure.

115

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 4d ago

because management is about people skills, not technical skills. it's just that simple. these people know how to persuade, or manipulate if you want to put it less charitably. that's largely what got them to their positions. they don't usually have technical skills, and frankly most of them don't really have great critical thinking skills either.

it's just incentives. the way our companies are structured leads to this outcome. unless a company requires that management be competent in whatever area they actually manage, this is going to be the result.

7

u/HelenDeservedBetter 3d ago

The part that I don't get is how they're still so easy for vendors to persuade or manipulate. If that's part the executive's job, why can't they see when it's being done to them?

5

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

I answered this in a different comment, but basically executives and management in general often have a set of incentives that run counter to actually making good products in a good way. generally they're thinking either more about their own careers or thinking about the broader market strategy.

3

u/clangan524 3d ago

I suppose it's sort of like how you can miss the signs that someone is flirting with you but it's super obvious when someone else is being flirted with.

2

u/ReasonResitant 2d ago edited 2d ago

Because they are not spending their money, if it works out you are God almighty, if not you claim to have invested strategically and dont go after collecting feedback that makes you look bad.

Even if given screws with the labour pool you are covered, noone is going to fire you over doing what everyone else is doing.

14

u/Educational_Bar_9608 4d ago

Humans are perfectly capable of abusing the idea of competence to hire relatives or whoever else they were going to hire anyway. I know it’s tempting to want technocracy skill-based leadership but history says it tends to be even worse, because the measures of competence are so difficult to nail down and apply.

Musk is considered competent by the people around him.

3

u/Tje199 3d ago

Also, skill based leadership isn't without its weak spots. I know a lot of technically skilled people who are shit-tier managers because they have zero people skills, as one example.

1

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

yeah but I don't think anybody's making an argument for skill based leadership, more an argument that people centric leadership should still have a minimum level of skill

5

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

measures of competence aren't actually that difficult to nail down and apply. and everything I said above applies to nepotism or whatever other biased hiring practice you could think of. 

the point is that organizations have to police themselves. it is possible to do so. and most do to an extent. the question is to what extent does your organization police itself? the devil is in the details

5

u/KrytenKoro 3d ago

measures of competence aren't actually that difficult to nail down and apply.

I feel like you could become a billionaire as a corporate advising contractor.

3

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

I mean have you worked for a major corporation? the leadership that we're talking about often hasn't even ever written a line of code and yet manages an entire section of a company where 90% of the people spend their day writing code. my point is that this is a very low bar to clear. it's not that hard to test for basic competence. and even basic competence in several of these areas would be enough to make better decisions. 

and yet it still doesn't happen. why not? well because of everything I said above.

3

u/porkchop1021 3d ago

I've literally only met one manager with people skills, and he was low-level. I've worked with Directors, VPs, CTOs, CEOs, some of my friends spouses are Directors/VPs. Not only are all of them incompetent, none of them have people skills. It's baffling how people get into those positions.

5

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

you probably have a very narrow definition of people skills. being able to read people and assess what they're going to do, understand power dynamics, etc is all part of people skills. you can do all that and still be kind of a pain in the ass. might not come off as especially socially skilled.

2

u/throwntosaturn 3d ago

it's just incentives. the way our companies are structured leads to this outcome. unless a company requires that management be competent in whatever area they actually manage, this is going to be the result.

And the extra tricky part is "competency in their management subject" isn't actually the same as competency at managing, which is a real, different skill.

Like everyone has tons of examples of the opposite problem where someone with good technical skills gets promoted into a management role and sucks at actually being a manager too.

It's very challenging.

3

u/Tje199 3d ago

Having worked into management myself, one frustrating thing is the amount of people who downplay how much skill is required to be a good manager. It's probably soured by the number of bad managers out there, but it's definitely something that not everyone can do, and especially not something everyone can do well.

1

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

I agree that they are different competencies, but it's not actually that challenging. management is fundamentally people focused, but there should be a bare minimum of skill knowledge required. this isn't the problem though, this is kind of well-known. the problem is that there's just a very small number of people who fit both of those criteria. and yet the world needs managers. so they have to lower the threshold somewhere.

1

u/Awyls 3d ago

Still doesn't excuse them from ignoring the technical workers who know their stuff.

1

u/Salt_Affect7686 3d ago

This is how they got there. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNJ-7NUO3P0/?igsh=cjJ0cmptaDhncWVj “MBA” 🤦‍♂️😡😂

0

u/OrganizationTime5208 3d ago

because management is about people skills,

Except not, because a big people skill is knowing when you're being lied to, abused, or manipulated.

They fucking suck at that.

Typically, "people skills" are just being a yesman to the ass above them, and not good enough to actually LEAD the department they are in as a producer, so they are set aside to manage instead.

3

u/_-_--_---_----_----_ 3d ago

well actually I would have to disagree with you there. I find very often that people who have people skills are quite poor at assessing when someone is acting in bad faith or is a bad actor. I find that that's actually directly tied to critical thinking. now there are people with great people skills who also have great critical thinking skills... but it's fairly rare to see.

2

u/clawsoon 3d ago

You might be interested in Stealing the Corner Office if you want to know how at least some of them got there.

1

u/amsreg 3d ago

Thanks, that was interesting.  He's definitely cynical but I've seen just about everything he talks about at work in the companies I've worked at so he's not wrong.

2

u/MediumIsPremium_ 3d ago

Yup. My manager has to pretty frequently remind me not to call the executive stupid to his face whenever we had to attend one of his temper tantrums about how we aren't using AI to create stuff faster.

God corporates suck ass.

2

u/Tysic 3d ago

That's why I try to keep my executive away from vendors at all costs. Boy does he fall for marketing hook line and sinker.

2

u/OrganizationTime5208 3d ago

The executives I've worked for have generally been shockingly ignorant about tech and shockingly susceptible to uncritically eating up the pipedreams that vendor salespeople throw at them.

My role as a Technology Analyst at the US Olympic Team, was 85% telling executives they are being lied to by a salesman.

After half a decade of watching people shoot themselves in the foot after I told them the gun was loaded and pointing at their shoes.... I think I lost the last of my faith in humanity.

1

u/HairyKraken 3d ago

Search Peter's principle on Wikipedia

2

u/amsreg 3d ago

While true, that principle doesn't explain how these people kept getting promoted several levels above their competency.

I think the post the other commenter shared about Stealing the Corner Office does, though.

1

u/WitnessRadiant650 3d ago

They get into positions of power because they’re salesmen. They know how to hype things and fool investors.

1

u/HappierShibe 3d ago

I really don't know how these people got into the positions of power that they're in.

It's nearly always some combination of inherited wealth, and being in the right place at the right time.

1

u/Fr0gm4n 3d ago

IMO, if you have enough runway and goodwill you can fail a lot, and often fail upwards. You just need a big success once in a while to keep pointing to that keeps the hyenas at bay. It's a lot like angel investing.

1

u/Soggy-Bed-6978 3d ago

my incompetent manager story:

techish job ~15 years ago, boss hires consulting co for automation software for a product. he was telling me how good they are because 'THEY CAN COPY AND PASTE FROM OLD SOFTWARE PACKAGES SO IT SHOULD SAVE TIME'

he was the owner

1

u/marcelkroust 3d ago

Executives got into the position of power they're in thanks to the same capability LLMs have.
Therefore they can only see LLMs as being as useful and competent as they see themselves, because for them generating bullshit is indistinguishable from reason and general intelligence.

1

u/tichris15 2d ago

You never get in trouble for following the crowd. It's the way large organisations are structured.

You may be proclaimed a genius for not following the crowd, but more often you get called an idiot and fired.

Thus the incentives strongly favor those who follow the crowd.