3 ms·

I was at a random event yesterday where the speaker got distracted by his excitement at how useful the Copilot integration in DynamicsCRM is. He couldn't stop r

by nl 2y ago

I was at a random event yesterday where the speaker got distracted by his excitement at how useful the Copilot integration in DynamicsCRM is. He couldn't stop raving about how it was saving him 20% of his time on a daily basis. It was a mind-numbingly boring seminar though, so perhaps it's these boring business functions that where the most benefit is seen, and they are so boring that journalists ignore the stories.

22c 2y ago
Interesting how the narrative being pushed by companies spending a lot of money on AI always seems to be gravitate to around 20% of time saved. I've not seen anywhere how this figure of 20% is determined. It seems to be a number that the masses are willing to just accept without any reasoning. If they said 30% people might start to ask how, if they said 5% people might just shrug and think it's not significant.
- buran77 2y ago
  > I've not seen anywhere how this figure of 20% is determined. A lot of people are probably just repeating a number that is big enough to impress management but not so big it sounds far fetched. Otherwise evaluating Copilot should be no different from evaluating any other tool claiming to improve productivity. How would you evaluate Excel vs. pen and paper? Self reporting, estimating time saved per action or common scenario, counting how many actions are taken per day, etc.
- nl 2y ago
  This wasn't someone from MS, it was his estimate. Based on this workflow I'd believe it - he did lots of digging through emails to work out what was going on, but the CoPilot summaries were giving him that stuff straight away on the front screen. I don't see 20% in any of MS' marketing material. The claim 6 hours saved weekly for a team of 5, so 2.5%. They claim 29% quicker on "completing everyday tasks", but specifics range from 74% faster (summarizing a meeting) down. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-copilot/meet-copilot#ROI-insights https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-copilot/meet-copil...
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > Based on this workflow I'd believe it - he did lots of digging through emails digging through emails ? Some of us have work to do. /s
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Big enough to be worthwhile, but not too big as to be unbelievable. If you want to convince someone of something, you can’t go wrong with 20%.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > I've not seen anywhere how this figure of 20% is determined. maybe laying off 20% of the teams/ICs? We have seen them happening while the profits are growing.
- enasterosophes 2y ago
  Plot twist: the number was originally generated by an AI, and that AI was selected for redistribution because it produced numbers that humans can easily get behind.
- garyfirestorm 2y ago
  I’d argue it’s significantly more time saved. Having copilot is like having access to a 3D printer in a world where 3D printers didn’t exist. The entry level barrier for someone is reduced significantly with copilot helping out. I can no longer worry about not knowing something and it keeping me from trying to accomplish an idea.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > Having copilot is like having access to a 3D printer in a world where 3D printers didn’t exist. Yes, but you have to move the printing head yourself. /s
kjellsbells 2y ago
20% is a very strong claim. Effectively someone is saying they got a whole day out of their working week back for free. I find that unbelievable: or at least, it prompts my inner Carl Sagan to ask for extraordinary evidence. In the case of Dynamics, and indeed of other CRMs (which already have a long history of ML/AI tooling, like Clari, Gong, etc) no amount of AI can solve the fundamental problem that if humans dont keep their records in the CRM clean and accurate, (which, by the way, they hate doing and absolutely suck at) then the AI is presenting insights based on garbage.
- nl 2y ago
  This task was mostly about summarizing old email threads when being passed between employees. It's the kind of thing that is quite time consuming but AI is very good at, and was a fairly significant part of his workflow so I found it reasonably credible. Since it was literally email threads he was working from the "junk data" thing wasn't a huge problem.
  - readyplayernull 2y ago
    AI to inflate outbox, AI to deflate inbox. Clever!
senectus1 2y ago
I used to (got sick of it) tally up the number of times "AI, CoPilot, ChatGPT" got said during the weekly local MS 30 min meetup. Not including the number of times it was written on the presentation.. just the number of times it was said. the average was 80 times in 30 mins. utterly ridiculous. Like being in that film "being John Malkovich". I no longer want to attend any MS "catch up" meetings... its all they want to talk about.

by nl 2y ago

22c 2y ago

Interesting how the narrative being pushed by companies spending a lot of money on AI always seems to be gravitate to around 20% of time saved. I've not seen anywhere how this figure of 20% is determined. It seems to be a number that the masses are willing to just accept without any reasoning. If they said 30% people might start to ask how, if they said 5% people might just shrug and think it's not significant.

buran77 2y ago
> I've not seen anywhere how this figure of 20% is determined. A lot of people are probably just repeating a number that is big enough to impress management but not so big it sounds far fetched. Otherwise evaluating Copilot should be no different from evaluating any other tool claiming to improve productivity. How would you evaluate Excel vs. pen and paper? Self reporting, estimating time saved per action or common scenario, counting how many actions are taken per day, etc.
nl 2y ago
This wasn't someone from MS, it was his estimate. Based on this workflow I'd believe it - he did lots of digging through emails to work out what was going on, but the CoPilot summaries were giving him that stuff straight away on the front screen. I don't see 20% in any of MS' marketing material. The claim 6 hours saved weekly for a team of 5, so 2.5%. They claim 29% quicker on "completing everyday tasks", but specifics range from 74% faster (summarizing a meeting) down. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-copilot/meet-copilot#ROI-insights https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-copilot/meet-copil...
- hulitu 2y ago
  > Based on this workflow I'd believe it - he did lots of digging through emails digging through emails ? Some of us have work to do. /s
nkrisc 2y ago
Big enough to be worthwhile, but not too big as to be unbelievable. If you want to convince someone of something, you can’t go wrong with 20%.
meiraleal 2y ago
> I've not seen anywhere how this figure of 20% is determined. maybe laying off 20% of the teams/ICs? We have seen them happening while the profits are growing.
enasterosophes 2y ago
Plot twist: the number was originally generated by an AI, and that AI was selected for redistribution because it produced numbers that humans can easily get behind.
garyfirestorm 2y ago
I’d argue it’s significantly more time saved. Having copilot is like having access to a 3D printer in a world where 3D printers didn’t exist. The entry level barrier for someone is reduced significantly with copilot helping out. I can no longer worry about not knowing something and it keeping me from trying to accomplish an idea.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > Having copilot is like having access to a 3D printer in a world where 3D printers didn’t exist. Yes, but you have to move the printing head yourself. /s

kjellsbells 2y ago

20% is a very strong claim. Effectively someone is saying they got a whole day out of their working week back for free. I find that unbelievable: or at least, it prompts my inner Carl Sagan to ask for extraordinary evidence. In the case of Dynamics, and indeed of other CRMs (which already have a long history of ML/AI tooling, like Clari, Gong, etc) no amount of AI can solve the fundamental problem that if humans dont keep their records in the CRM clean and accurate, (which, by the way, they hate doing and absolutely suck at) then the AI is presenting insights based on garbage.

nl 2y ago
This task was mostly about summarizing old email threads when being passed between employees. It's the kind of thing that is quite time consuming but AI is very good at, and was a fairly significant part of his workflow so I found it reasonably credible. Since it was literally email threads he was working from the "junk data" thing wasn't a huge problem.
- readyplayernull 2y ago
  AI to inflate outbox, AI to deflate inbox. Clever!

senectus1 2y ago

I used to (got sick of it) tally up the number of times "AI, CoPilot, ChatGPT" got said during the weekly local MS 30 min meetup. Not including the number of times it was written on the presentation.. just the number of times it was said. the average was 80 times in 30 mins. utterly ridiculous. Like being in that film "being John Malkovich". I no longer want to attend any MS "catch up" meetings... its all they want to talk about.