Anecdotal survey: two thirds of IT leaders report AI results, but only a few see them as critical
According to a survey among 160 IT vice presidents (Azeem Azhar), two thirds report measurable AI results, but only about eight would consider them significant enough to interrupt the CEO's vacation. The situation around the AI bubble remains, according to Azhar, "very balanced."
According to Azeem Azhar, a British entrepreneur and founder of the research group Exponential View, he asked around 160 IT vice presidents at an event in Las Vegas who among them could demonstrate measurable results from AI deployment. According to his statements in a podcast with Nicholas Thompson of The Atlantic, two thirds of those present remained standing – more than he expected. But when he asked who had results significant enough that they would interrupt the CEO's summer vacation because of them, only about eight people remained standing.
Azhar concludes from this that companies are making progress in deploying AI, but slowly, and it is not clear whether this pace is sufficient to justify the current level of investment. According to him, some managers report that after initial successes, company leadership becomes more ambitious and AI budgets are growing even in slower markets such as Italy, despite partial failures.
At the same time, according to Azhar, companies are shifting away from costly frontier models toward open-weight alternatives – AI usage may thus continue to grow, but the bubble could still burst if enough money fails to flow back into financing the construction of data centers. Azhar further refers to a Boston Consulting Group survey, according to which about 70 percent of CEOs worldwide consider AI success important for how they are perceived in their role – which is a motivation to portray the situation more rosily than reality warrants. Azhar himself, by his own account, does not have a clear-cut answer to the question of the AI bubble and considers the situation to be "very balanced."
Why it matters
The figure "two thirds report results" is often used as an argument for continued investment in AI, but the cited survey shows that there is a big difference between a "measurable result" and a result with real weight for company decision-making. For companies planning further AI investments, this is a signal that internal reporting on AI benefits should distinguish between cosmetic metrics and actual business impact, and that they should also take into account CEOs' motivation (per the BCG survey) to present AI results more positively than reality warrants.
Relevant practical impact
What this means
For a business
Companies deploying AI should distinguish between a "measurable result" and a result that actually influences key decisions – according to the cited survey, the difference between these two categories is an order of magnitude, which is relevant for setting realistic metrics for return on AI investment.
StrategyCheck the original
Event sources
only one source so far · 1 publisher, 1 independent. We count feeds from the same owner only once.