What measures can be used for RoI of AI? The article [[Why Utah Uses More AI Than California?]] makes some attempt (unsuccessfully, I would argue) to identify some ways of measuring it: **Enterprise ROI** – Claim: 95% of organisations see _zero_ measurable ROI from GenAI despite $30–40B investment. – Source: MIT report, _The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025_. **Consumer monetisation** – Claim: Only ~3% of consumer AI users pay; for ChatGPT specifically 2–5%. – Source: OpenAI usage data (Sept 2025) and Menlo Ventures survey (2025). **Work v personal use** – Claim: ChatGPT usage has moved from ~50/50 work–personal in June 2024 to ~70% personal in Sept 2025. – Source: OpenAI usage report (2025). **Augmentation vs automation** – Claim: Wealthier countries lean toward augmentation over automation. – Source: Anthropic _AI Usage Index_ (2025). – Interpretation (author’s): this shows “delegation failed.” **"Productive use" vs “comfort use”** – Claim: Growth area is “expressing” (emotional/sounding board use) vs “asking” or “doing.” – Source: OpenAI usage report (2025). – Interpretation (author’s): this is non-productive use. My thoughts on this: **Blurring consumer and enterprise evidence** – The article collapses two distinct issues: enterprise ROI (MIT) and consumer willingness-to-pay (OpenAI, Menlo). They are different dynamics and should be analysed separately. **Misattributed motivation** – Author wrongly applies organisational motivation (economic output) to individuals. Employees adopt AI for ease of use, relief from effort, or job interest; organisations adopt AI for measurable output gains. **Expressing as productivity** – Article dismisses expressive use (e.g. "I am feeling overwhelmed with my work tasks, help me order my thoughts") as “comfort use” rather than "productive use". I would argue that augmented cognition (clarifying thinking, reducing overwhelm) is a legitimate productivity gain, though not yet captured in ROI frameworks. **Narrative vs data** – The “delegation failed” line is not from Anthropic, but the author’s gloss. Other explanations exist (labour costs, skills, incentives in different economies). **Lack of a framework** – None of the sources provide a coherent framework for measuring AI ROI. The article inherits this weakness, critiquing without offering structured alternatives.