CursedBytes EP#18: AI Panic Was Engineered—Here’s How скачать в хорошем качестве

CursedBytes EP#18: AI Panic Was Engineered—Here’s How

Vanakkam Apparasattis! 🙏 On CursedBytes EP#18, we’re unpacking one of 2025’s biggest hidden stories: how three viral AI studies — from Menlo Ventures, Graphite, and MIT/Nanda — used weak data, biased sampling, and promotional framing to create a wave of AI pessimism that never should have existed. This episode cuts through the drama and shows how marketing disguised as research shaped headlines, influenced enterprise budgets, and even spooked markets, despite stronger, independent studies showing far more positive results. 🔹 The Menlo Ventures “Market Flip” Study: A 150-person survey drawn from Menlo’s own portfolio claimed Anthropic overtook OpenAI — but with major selection bias and clear financial incentives, the report acted more like investor marketing than market reality. 🔹 Graphite’s “57% of the Internet Is AI-Generated”: Using unreliable AI-detection tools on 65,000 URLs, Graphite declared more than half the internet is AI-made. We break down why AI detectors aren’t authorship detectors, how statistical noise becomes “AI output,” and why the 57% headline falls apart on contact. 🔹 MIT/Nanda’s “95% of GenAI Pilots Fail”: Based on only 52 interviews and a definition of “success” so strict it guaranteed failure, the MIT/Nanda report positioned its own consulting solution as the fix. We show how narrow timeframes + promotional framing created a panic narrative that didn’t reflect the broader enterprise landscape. 🔹 The Pattern Across All Three Funding incentives + tiny/broken samples + sensational headlines = engineered pessimism, not empirical truth. Each study followed the same formula, and each went viral because dramatic claims outperform nuance. 🔹 What Larger, Independent Studies Actually Show BCG, McKinsey, EY, Snowflake/ESG, and others report positive ROI, expanding budgets, and accelerating adoption — the opposite of the doom pushed by the viral studies. 🔹 The Practical Filter: How to Analyze Viral AI Studies In 2026, enterprises need critical thinking more than fear. We walk through a simple framework to evaluate studies: Follow the money: who funded it, who benefits? Check the sample: size, diversity, selection process. Interrogate the method: rigor, definitions, timeframes. Compare to broader research: does it align or contradict? Assess decision impact: are you being nudged into or away from a specific purchase? 💡 Chapters / Time Stamps 0:00 – Expectation Setup: Who benefits from AI panic? 0:45 – Main Idea - Overview of the three viral studies 2:47 – Topic 1: The Three Viral 2025 Studies as Case Studies of Misleading Methods 6:45 – Why these researches are a problem? 9:13 – Topic 2: Media Dynamics + Incentives That Shape AI Narratives 12:40 – Questions to ask to find these kinds of viral studies 14:11 – Topic 3: Scarcity of Deep AI Expertise Enables Misinterpretation 15:38 – Reasons to misunderstand research 19:01 – Bottom Line: Building a skeptical filter for 2026 🔍 Keywords / Tags AI Studies, AI Panic, Menlo Ventures, Anthropic vs OpenAI, Graphite SEO, MIT GenAI Report, AI ROI, AI Adoption, Enterprise AI, Research Bias, AI Misinformation, AI Detectors, AI Strategy 2026, Market Narratives, CursedBytes Tamil Sources in video: 1. [2025 Mid-Year LLM Market Update: Foundation Model Landscape + Economics \| Menlo Ventures](https://menlovc.com/perspective/2025-...) 2. [mlq.ai/media/quarterly\_decks/v0.1\_State\_of\_AI\_in\_Business\_2025\_Report.pdf](https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/...) 3. [More Articles Are Now Created by AI Than Humans](https://graphite.io/five-percent/more...)