More than half of CEOs report seeing no benefits from AI deployment so far — only 12% of business leaders hit the jackpot of higher revenues and reduced costs
New report suggests that the best results with AI come from more AI.
Many AI companies are touting artificial intelligence as the next-level, game-changing tool that will propel businesses to new height of productivity paired with lower costs. However, a recent survey by professional services network PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) revealed that, out of 4,454 chief executives surveyed, only 12% saw the complete benefits of increased revenue paired with decreased spending.
A good 13% of those surveyed reported saw a decrease in costs without a change in revenue, while another 8% received an increase in earnings without seeing a change in expenses — meaning at least a third of the enterprise AI users gained some value from their deployment of the tech.
On the other hand, 55% saw no benefit from AI tools yet. That portion of the pie can be further sliced as follows: 42% of that group saw change at all, 12% reported increased costs without any change in revenue, and 1% getting the worst outcome: increased expenses and decreased returns.
There’s also a remaining 12% which either saw lower costs paired with lower revenues, or higher proceeds matched by higher expenditure, thus canceling out the advantages brought by AI.
However, PwC noted that this inconsistency in results could be because enterprises aren’t prepared to use the technology yet. Mohamed Kande, its global chairman, said: “Companies that invest in data readiness, clear AI roadmaps, responsible guardrails, and a culture that enables adoption see better outcomes.”
The report suggests that companies should apply AI more extensively across “their products, services, and experiences” to achieve “both additional revenues and lower costs from AI,” as what the 12% that gained the most advantage from their AI tools reported.
Furthermore, PwC further says that only 14% of the workforce use generative AI daily in their workflow, meaning there’s a good chance that they might not understand or even be aware of the risks and benefits of using AI services. With such a small proportion of workers using these tools, the potential for growth in the enterprise seems high.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Because of this apparent need for for deeper deployment to realize the best results, it seems that many businesses will continue to increase their investments in AI. And delivering real value to customers is important to drive that spending. J.P. Morgan recently projected that the AI industry needs to deliver $650 billion in revenue just to get a 10% return on the firm's current AI investment, which amounts to $34.72 from every current iPhone user or $180 from every Netflix subscriber.
In any case, this report reveals the potentially precarious state that AI services are in right now. Industry leaders may want to go all-in on the technology, but the wide range of results on bottom lines in this survey suggests that bridging the gap between hype and business results is a problem yet to be solved.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
Tanakoi Replythis report reveals the potentially precarious state that AI services are in right now...
No, it indicates the exact opposite. A year ago, similar surveys found only 10% of firms were seeing benefits from AI. Now the figure is 45%. In another year, we should expect the figure to be 70% or higher. -
cknobman Guess the CEO's better triple down and deploy more AI!Reply
At my employer we are forced to use AI. In fact they monitor our AI usage and if we dont use it often enough we get an email warning us that if it continues our "senior management" will be notified.
No exaggeration!
This year we were told every single project must implement AI in some way. If we feel a project does not need AI then we have to get review and approval from senior management to allow us to move forward without it.
From my experience there is nothing organic about AI use and benefits.
It is all being forced on workers and consumers no matter what.
I simply say No Thanks, Satan. -
DS426 Reply
I can't work for an employer that has a company culture like that.cknobman said:Guess the CEO's better triple down and deploy more AI!
At my employer we are forced to use AI. In fact they monitor our AI usage and if we dont use it often enough we get an email warning us that if it continues our "senior management" will be notified.
No exaggeration!
This year we were told every single project must implement AI in some way. If we feel a project does not need AI then we have to get review and approval from senior management to allow us to move forward without it.
From my experience there is nothing organic about AI use and benefits.
It is all being forced on workers and consumers no matter what.
I simply say No Thanks, Satan. -
Gururu Reply
I agree. As businesses learn how to adopt it successfully, I can think of no business that would not benefit in some way. There may not be AI solutions for those businesses yet, but they will come.Tanakoi said:No, it indicates the exact opposite. A year ago, similar surveys found only 10% of firms were seeing benefits from AI. Now the figure is 45%. In another year, we should expect the figure to be 70% or higher. -
LordVile Reply
Define “benefit”. If it’s the companies books look better as they’ve lowered their workforce numbers then that won’t last longTanakoi said:No, it indicates the exact opposite. A year ago, similar surveys found only 10% of firms were seeing benefits from AI. Now the figure is 45%. In another year, we should expect the figure to be 70% or higher. -
Tanakoi Reply
It's clearly defined right there in the article.LordVile said:Define “benefit”.
Do you work for a firm that still hires scribes, lamp-lighters, coachmen, and punkah wallahs? Why not boycott one of them?DS426 said:I can't work for an employer that has a company culture like that. -
Eximo Company culture with forced technology is a little different than being against AI. I think that was more a general statement.Reply
I also dislike outside interference in tech decisions based on sunk cost fallacy or any other sort of sole management based decision. Use "blank" or else is a bad policy unless you are talking like a total replacement system.
I can recall one time we hired a new CFO. They decided that we would adopt the finance software package that was used at their old company, no decision or input from IT or even the infrastructure team. Literally went out and signed a contract. Basically, we were asked to hook it up and make it work. Our data was not in an acceptable format, the related tools were not compatible with the software we had, and the one tool that was only had a beta connection (That is a story in and of itself, lets just say their grasp of database queries was limited). After 2 years it was abandoned because it didn't produce the desired results and that person moved on to another company. A huge financial hit for no other reason than that they wanted something familiar. Could have just used the software we already had.
I now have access to CoPilot, but, generally, it can't assist with the tasks I deal with because it is just regurgitating what a normal google search would get me. If I ask it to do anything specific related to my work, there just isn't enough information out there for it to draw from. I have used other LLM tools useful for dipping into a new syntax/language. A nice jumpstart, but it was fundamentally wrong about the answer every time. But it gave me enough to get what I actually wanted to do working.
That whole appeasement thing is annoying, it is always so cheerful about how this is the right answer now, "sorry about what I said earlier that was a mistake". Proceeds to make the exact same mistake in a slightly different way.
Now access to an LLM that I could train with input, might be worth looking into. But we won't get funding for something like that anytime soon. -
Sam Hobbs Without details it is difficult to determine the significance of the statistics reported here.Reply
If a business is leasing property then invests in the purchase and/or construction of the property it does business in then its short-term profits will likely be diminished due to the additional cost. Correct?
If a business invests in the development, or at least purchase and implementation of, new software for the business then its short-term profits will likely be diminished due to the additional cost.
I am not an AI specialist but I believe that AI should normally cost more temporarily. Virtual assistants need time to learn, just as people do. If companies are using AI without properly training it then they will get little benefit, probably less benefit. When I call for support and an AI system tries to understand what I am saying and fails to understand, if the company does not fix such problems then they are likely to not benefit from the use of AI.