A new study has tried to reason the biggest complaint that majority of companies have with their AI investment — that they give zero return. A recent MIT study had put the figure of AI investment failures at 95%. Now a study from researchers at consulting company BetterUp Labs, in collaboration with Stanford Social Media Lab, has reasoned the AI failure with a new term — “workslop”. The study coins the new term to describe low-quality, AI-generated work: “Workslop.”Published in the Harvard Business Review, the research highlights how Workslop may explain why 95% of organizations experimenting with AI report no return on investment. Workslop, defined as “AI-generated work content that masquerades as good work, but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task,” is often unhelpful, incomplete, or missing critical context. The researchers warn that it shifts the burden downstream, forcing others to interpret, correct, or redo the work.The researchers also conducted an ongoing survey of 1,150 full-time, U.S.-based employees, with 40% of respondents saying they’d received Workslop in the past month.To combat Workslop, researchers urge workplace leaders to model intentional AI use and establish clear guidelines for acceptable practices. “Leaders must set guardrails around norms to ensure AI contributes meaningfully,” the study advises.The findings highlight the need for thoughtful integration of AI tools to avoid creating more work rather than less.

MIT study says 95% of Gen-AI pilots at companies are failing

A recent MIT study indicates that 95% of organizations studied get zero return on their AI investment. The study said that 95% of organizations found zero return despite enterprise investment of $30 billion to $40 billion into GenAI. MIT researchers are said to have studied 300 public AI initiatives to try and suss out the “no hype reality” of AI’s impact on business.