“In plain English, this means that while generative AI is being shoved into plenty of places, it doesn't seem to be generating organizations money.”
Our reading:
Generative AI, though widely adopted, does not seem to be generating organizations money.
Assessment: Can’t be checked
What happened
Not graded on evidence
Outcome: Can’t be checked
An opinion, a recommendation, or too vague to test. Listed, not scored.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
The sentence is the speaker's hedged reading of a McKinsey survey: generative AI 'doesn't seem to be generating organizations money.' He gives no measure of 'generating money', no group of organizations, no period and no cutoff. Scoring it would mean picking those terms for him, for example organization-wide EBIT in 2023 with some prevalence threshold. Reviewers found that unfair in earlier drafts. Checking only whether the McKinsey numbers exist would test his source, not his inference. So the claim cannot fairly be marked true or false.
Caveats
- The primary McKinsey report could not be loaded, so even the underlying figures were not verified here.
- The survey asks about AI in general, which makes any attempt to test a claim about generative AI shakier still.
Evidence (0 items)
Claims like this aren’t scored, so there is no evidence to show.
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Observation
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Where we had to interpret
- The sentence is the speaker's own gloss on survey figures he just quoted ('this means'). It is hedged ('doesn't seem'). It names no metric, no threshold for 'generating money', no set of organizations, and no period.
- Turning it into a scored claim would mean supplying the metric (EBIT share? profit? revenue?), the population, the period and a cutoff for how many organizations must profit. The speaker gave none of these. Earlier drafts were found unfair for doing exactly that.
- Checking only whether the McKinsey figures exist would test the cited data, not this sentence, which is an interpretation of that data.
- So the claim is treated as a hedged interpretation that cannot be scored true or false.
We don’t grade claims like this. We only check the quote and who said it.
What would settle it
Nothing settles it in its current form. A restated claim with a named metric, population and period (for example, the share of firms reporting EBIT gains from generative AI in 2023) could be tested against survey or filing data.
We found 31 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Where's Your Ed At, Subprime Intelligence, paragraph 20.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-28. The post may have been edited after 2024-02-19.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Where's Your Ed At, Subprime Intelligence
In plain English, this means that while generative AI is being shoved into plenty of places, it doesn't seem to be generating organizations money.
- Where
- paragraph 20
- Published
- 2024-02-19
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Can’t be checked. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.