If you work in tech, AI feels like it's everywhere. It writes code, reviews pull requests, generates images, edits video, and answers support ticke...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I opened both sources, because the paragraph leans on three numbers at once.
The Apollo half holds. Slok's own wording: "Revenue per worker is rising for the Mag 7 but is flat for the S&P 493. Profit margins are rising for the Mag 7 but are flat for the S&P 493. And there are still no signs of AI boosting productivity growth." Nothing in this post overstates him.
The Forrester paragraph is where it drifts. Computerworld's brief credits "more than half of IT executives are expected to miss their return-on-investment targets" to The Register, and that is a forecast, not a survey finding. The 22% figure is a survey finding, and those respondents are "AI decision-makers", not IT executives. So one sentence joins a 2027 spending projection to a 2026 survey answer, across two different populations. The numbers are right; "in their survey" is carrying weight it cannot hold. Worth one clause, too: the chain is Forrester to The Register to Computerworld to you.
One method note, in the direction your post already argues: a flat aggregate line bounds the visible payoff, it does not measure the technology's usefulness. "Helped some, hurt others, netted out" draws the same flat line. Slok's "so far" is the honest part of it.
Thanks for checking the sources. The Apollo numbers hold, as you said, and they carry the argument. The Forrester line already says the ROI figure is expected, and the survey number stands on its own. Both point the same way. And a flat line isn’t a verdict, which is why the post ends without one.
Fair on the wording. "Expected" is your sentence, so that half of my read does not stand.
The half that does: those two numbers are not two sources. Same survey population, AI decision-makers, meaning the people already running the tools they are reporting on. Agreement between two questions asked of one group is not corroboration. And 22% operating profit from that group is a self-report about their own organisation, not a company-wide measure. One population, quoted twice.
Apollo's line still carries the post, as you said. That is the part I would keep.
Fair, that’s a genuinely sharper point. Two answers from the same group, about their own tools, aren’t independent evidence, and self-reported profit impact has obvious limits. That’s why Apollo’s line matters more: it’s measured from company results, not opinions. Forrester adds colour, Apollo carries the weight. Thanks for pushing it.
This is a fantastic teardown of statistical sleight of hand. Tracing the chain (Forrester -> The Register -> Computerworld -> Article) and catching that the 2027 forecast was mixed with a 2026 survey of a totally different population ("IT execs" vs "AI decision-makers") is exactly how you debunk hype-driven reporting.
The note about the flat aggregate line is also the smartest part of the whole debate—a net-zero productivity gain doesn't mean AI is useless, it just means the gains and losses are canceling each other out right now.
A fair point about wording, not sleight of hand. Both figures point the same direction, and Apollo’s flat line holds. Whether gains and losses are canceling is the open question.
The "easy to check vs. judgment" distinction is exactly why AI feels like magic in a dev environment but a money pit in an ops department.
great insights
😊
Thanks! The gap between shipping code and making real business judgment calls is definitely the biggest hurdle right now.