tgroenwals shared this post · May 14

𝗨𝗻𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁.

They measure the easy stuff.
They just track usage.

→ How many employees logged in.
→ How many prompts were written.
→ How many tokens were consumed.
→ How many Copilot licenses were activated.

That is not impact.
That is activity.

The real question is different:

→ Did AI increase revenue?
→ Did it shorten time to value?
→ Did it reduce manual handoffs?
→ Did it free up workforce capacity?
→ Did it improve customer satisfaction?

Gleaming Systems Completely agree. Usage metrics can show interest, but they rarely prove business value. Real AI impact shows up in cycle times, customer outcomes, operational efficiency, and revenue movement. May 14

Gagik Kyurkchyan Great framing, Andreas — activity vs impact is the right cut. The part I keep snagging on is hidden inside the word "accounting": most of those KPIs are subtractions against a baseline. "Post-AI revenue minus baseline revenue" assumes the baseline would've held still, but nothing else in the business froze while AI rolled out. Even measuring it for my own dev workflow, I can't fully separate "AI made me faster" from "I also got better at the problem." It's less an accounting problem than an attribution one — and attribution needs a counterfactual you never get to run. May 14

Public author posts