All media here have picked up the hype "AI implementation does not bring economic benefits". Briefly - there was a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that showed that 95% of corporations did not notice an increase in profits from AI implementation. When working in a corporate accelerator, we almost never took projects based purely on AI - that is, when AI is the core of the product, not, for example, a software-hardware complex or where AI is a small feature. Why did we ignore it at the very start of the trend 3-5 years ago? Could we have missed it? No!

We encountered what the entire industry is now facing. Before implementation for testing, we forced founders to prove the product's benefit, and pure AI always saved 5-15% of an employee's time. And what does that mean for a corporation? That's right - the employee will spend 5-15% more time drinking tea and playing solitaire. Therefore, founder, remember - savings on employee time can only be counted when reducing FTEs, and this is only possible if you have replaced all of the employee's functions.

How does this work in practice? We make software that handles customer communication, do we fire all customer relationship managers? No, they still meet people in the office, can call to urge a client, prepare original documents, put physical stamps, buy cookies for the office when it's time, organize corporate events, and occasionally take calls from the client base to remind about the company, also post messages for the Telegram channel, and at exhibitions conduct demonstrations and establish first contact. Do we fire them? Of course not, someone still has to do all that. So now we can only fire one out of ten relationship managers, and even then it's not certain that all functions will be evenly distributed.

Therefore, look for other ways to prove your economic benefit to a potential client, considering the current trends, everyone will start counting money very carefully.