How tf do you measure impact and adoption? Why is Telegraph on the same line as Steam Engine?
Where’s your data source? And how exactly is “Impact & Adoption” defined? This seems pretty poorly thought out.
I kinda get the jist of the viz (ideas spread faster with the internet), but without additional context the metric on the Y axis seems completely subjective.
I’m pretty sure with different cherry-picked inflection points and different time bounds on the X axis someone could make a chart in whatever shape they want.
This is just arbitrary nonsense presented as if it were data. Y axis makes no sense (is Gen AI really at 80%? Like we’re only expecting a little more benefit from this in the future – we’ve alreay got nearly everythign?). Then you compare small improvements within one technology (neural networks) to entirely distinct technologies to argue it’s a more rapid rate of change?
![[OC] AI innovations reach critical mass and scale globally in years, not decades](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/amn77wduycne1-1920x1024.png)
4 comments
How tf do you measure impact and adoption? Why is Telegraph on the same line as Steam Engine?
Where’s your data source? And how exactly is “Impact & Adoption” defined? This seems pretty poorly thought out.
I kinda get the jist of the viz (ideas spread faster with the internet), but without additional context the metric on the Y axis seems completely subjective.
I’m pretty sure with different cherry-picked inflection points and different time bounds on the X axis someone could make a chart in whatever shape they want.
This is just arbitrary nonsense presented as if it were data. Y axis makes no sense (is Gen AI really at 80%? Like we’re only expecting a little more benefit from this in the future – we’ve alreay got nearly everythign?). Then you compare small improvements within one technology (neural networks) to entirely distinct technologies to argue it’s a more rapid rate of change?
Comments are closed.