[treetalker]

The following is my take on what's happening — outside the software-development domain, which is special vis-à-vis LLMs for obvious reasons.

Given worker access to generative LLMs, plus training and motivation to use them, LLMs are effective for certain workflows. Those workflows tend to be personal, one-offs, or summarization in nature: write a bash script for this headache I have every day; tell me what colleague X is trying to say in his 1200-word email, since his writing is garbage and he can't get to the point; "what's the Excel formula syntax for this other thing that I keep forgetting?"; etc.

So the time and mental-energy savings inures to the workers, mostly from coordination tasks that don't directly create core value. And then those savings aren't "reinvested" into value-producing activities whose benefits would inure to the firm because the workers have no incentive to do so; don't know how to create core value; don't have the skills to create core value; or aren't permitted to do those activities by higher-ups.

Bottom line: LLMs are eating busywork coordination activities — hence no impact on most firms' bottom lines.

[harran]

Exactly! this aligns with the "pilot purgatory" pattern. AI boosts productivity at the task level, but unless those savings are applied to workflows that directly drive revenue or strategic value, the firm sees little financial impact. It's a classic misalignment between individual efficiency and organizational ROI.

[nlawalker]

> PwC calls it "Pilot Purgatory." The pattern: AI gets deployed in isolated, tactical projects that don't connect to revenue.

I feel like both the name and the description miss the mark though - the use isn't in pilots or isolated projects, it's individual people using it to find stuff and read/write/code/work/make decisions for them, and none of that is going to drive strategic value until companies raise expectations on productivity to take advantage of it.

It makes me think of a couple of bullet points from that "An AI CEO said something honest" post[1]:

> - majority of workers have no reason to be super motivated, they want to do their 9-5 and get back to their life

> - they're not using AI to be 10x more effective they're using it to churn out their tasks with less energy spend

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47042788

[bravetraveler]

I have to say something my Dad used to say, hope this doesn't land poorly: "they can want with one hand and shit in the other, see which fills first."

Generally agree with the peer comment, carrot vs stick applies (ie: 'safety'). There are more, arguably better, moves. Demanding juice from a husk, hmm. Selecting for fresh graduates/those without leverage, still, I see.

[harran]

Yeah, the reluctance often comes from the learning curve, resistance to change, and fear of being let go "employees see it happen to others". Motivation might shift if organizations provide psychological safety, training, and space to experiment, showing that AI can enhance the work rather than just replace it.