Well run large companies often waste a lot, in order to (1) hedge risks of being left behind, (2) ensure they have options in the future in possible growth or new efficiency areas, and (3) to start on long learning curves for skills and capabilities that appear likely to be a baseline necessity in the long run.

Bonfires of money.

Predictably. Because all three of those concerns require highly speculative action to properly address.

That doesn't make those reasons invalid. Failures are expected, especially in early days. And are not a sign they are making spurious bets, or starry eyed about industry upheavals. The minimal return is still experience gained and a ramped up institutional focus.

How many of us here speed up our overall development by coding early on new projects before we have complete clarity? Writing code we will often throw away?

Agreed. Smug dismissal of new ideas is such a lazy shortcut to trying to look smart. I'd much rather talk to someone enthusiastic about something than someone who does nothing but sit there and say "this thing sucks" every time something happens even if person #2 is incidentally right a lot of the time.

Or (4), because a sales team convinced them there was some magic wand they could buy that would triple their productivity.

You put my thoughts into words better than I could.

This reminds me of the exploration-exploration trade-off in reinforcement learning: you want to maximise your long term profits but, since your knowledge is incomplete, you must acquire new knowledge, which companies do by trying stuff. Prematurely dismissing GenAI could mean missing out on new efficiencies, which take time to be identified.

You're giving company executives way too much credit in general. I'm sure there are unicorns out there where conscientious stewards of the company's long-term health are making measured, rational choices that may pay off in a decade, but it's a tiny minority of companies. Most are run by narcissistic short-term corporate raiders whose first priority is looting the company for their own profit and second priority is cosplaying as a once-in-a-generation genius "thought leader" in a never-ending battle to beat away the nagging (and correct) thought that they're nepo-babies who have no clue what they're doing. These morons are burning money because they are stupid and/or because it benefits them and their buddies in the short-term. They burned money on blockchain bullshit, they burned money on Web 2.0 bullshit, they are burning money on AI, and they will be burning money on the next fad too. The fact that AI might actually turn out to be something real is complete serendipity; it has nothing to do with their insight or foresight. The only reason they ever look smart is because they're great at taking credit for every win, everyone else immediately forgets all their losses, and op-ed writers and internet simps all compete to write the most sycophantic adulations of their brilliance. They could start finger-painting their office windows with their own feces and the Wall Street Journal would pump out op-eds saying "Here's why smearing poop on your windows is actually a Really Brilliant Business Move made by Really Good-Looking Business Winners!" Just go back and re-read your comment but think "blockchain" instead of "AI" and you'll see clearly how silly and sycophantic it really is.

> Well run large companies

I've never heard of such a thing

Similarly, VC sets barrels of money on fire.

And depending on how you look at it, science itself is experimentation, but at least it mostly results in publications in the end, that may or may not be read, but at least serve as records of areas explored.