# James O’Donnell asks in MIT Technology Review why no company would discuss scaling back AI spending [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/james-o-donnell-asks-in-mit-technology-review-why-no-company-c00c72c2) MIT Technology Review published this newsletter on October 28, 2025. In a signed section, senior AI reporter James O’Donnell describes trying to find companies willing to discuss scaling back their AI spending. He had set out after a report found that 95% of generative AI pilots were failing, following what he calls the underwhelming release of GPT-5. O’Donnell says he could not find a company willing to talk about scaling back, despite his sense that AI hype had been punctured. His question is what to make of that failed reporting quest—not a claim that companies are or are not cutting spending. The gap between a striking report and the absence of willing interviewees leaves the state of companies’ spending unclear. The newsletter does not provide evidence about companies’ actual spending decisions or explain why none would discuss them. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source MIT Technology Review · Article Original source date: Oct 28, 2025 (2025-10-28T13:10:00Z). Date basis: Date from the publisher’s own records, through its API. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T10:53:27.575Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T23:49:48.383Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-02T23:51:21.824Z. - [The Download: Microsoft’s stance on erotic AI, and an AI hype mystery](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Limits Text as retrieved on November 2, 2026; originally published October 28, 2025. The newsletter summarizes O’Donnell’s reporting quest but does not include the full story or evidence about companies’ actual spending decisions. ## Open question What evidence, beyond companies’ willingness to speak with O’Donnell, would show whether they are scaling back AI spending? ## Source-stated James O’Donnell says he could not find a company willing to discuss scaling back AI spending, despite setting out to find one. > But if AI’s hype has indeed been punctured, I couldn’t find a company willing to talk about it. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Source-stated O’Donnell says his reporting question followed a report that found 95% of generative AI pilots were failing. > Then a report released two weeks later found that 95% of generative AI pilots were failing - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Source-stated O’Donnell describes the release of GPT-5 as underwhelming. > First there was the underwhelming release of GPT-5 in August. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Source and contributor context MIT Technology Review · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media retrieval status: unchecked. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 0285ed5d-7273-1dd2-d40b-5dba441a015b. Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T10:48:41.490Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge\_admitted\_by\_model, second\_opinion\_categorical. Observation: 3e3cd0b878674fb23d598831a5385effe92f0f92aa54be2750dcda7f78f8a964. Source text hash: 255d930f151afd5f5621378dd2782a2b9960a64fc4abd2d661f6089d1d0a28c4. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-11T10:53:27.575Z MIT Technology Review published this newsletter on October 28, 2025. In a signed section, senior AI reporter James O’Donnell describes trying to find companies willing to discuss scaling back their AI spending. He had set out after a report found that 95% of generative AI pilots were failing, following what he calls the underwhelming release of GPT-5. O’Donnell says he could not find a company willing to talk about scaling back, despite his sense that AI hype had been punctured. His question is what to make of that failed reporting quest—not a claim that companies are or are not cutting spending. The gap between a striking report and the absence of willing interviewees leaves the state of companies’ spending unclear. The newsletter does not provide evidence about companies’ actual spending decisions or explain why none would discuss them. ## Original source MIT Technology Review · Article Original source date: Oct 28, 2025 (2025-10-28T13:10:00Z). Date basis: Date from the publisher’s own records, through its API. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T10:53:27.575Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T23:49:48.383Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-02T23:51:21.824Z. - [The Download: Microsoft’s stance on erotic AI, and an AI hype mystery](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Limits Text as retrieved on November 2, 2026; originally published October 28, 2025. The newsletter summarizes O’Donnell’s reporting quest but does not include the full story or evidence about companies’ actual spending decisions. ## Open question What evidence, beyond companies’ willingness to speak with O’Donnell, would show whether they are scaling back AI spending? ## Source-stated James O’Donnell says he could not find a company willing to discuss scaling back AI spending, despite setting out to find one. > But if AI’s hype has indeed been punctured, I couldn’t find a company willing to talk about it. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Source-stated O’Donnell says his reporting question followed a report that found 95% of generative AI pilots were failing. > Then a report released two weeks later found that 95% of generative AI pilots were failing - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Source-stated O’Donnell describes the release of GPT-5 as underwhelming. > First there was the underwhelming release of GPT-5 in August. - [Supporting source](https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/28/1126802/the-download-microsofts-stance-on-erotic-ai-and-an-ai-hype-mystery/) ## Source and contributor context MIT Technology Review · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media retrieval status: unchecked. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 0285ed5d-7273-1dd2-d40b-5dba441a015b. Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5. Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T10:48:41.490Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge\_admitted\_by\_model, second\_opinion\_categorical. Observation: 3e3cd0b878674fb23d598831a5385effe92f0f92aa54be2750dcda7f78f8a964. Source text hash: 255d930f151afd5f5621378dd2782a2b9960a64fc4abd2d661f6089d1d0a28c4. ### passed — 2026-11-11T10:48:41.490Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: 0285ed5d-7273-1dd2-d40b-5dba441a015b attribution — pass: The Download is a single newsletter issue with commentary in its own words, so it counts as one piece. The reading correctly attributes the reporting quest to senior AI reporter James O'Donnell in a signed section published by MIT Technology Review. > —James O’Donnell, senior AI reporter summary — pass: The summary faithfully captures O'Donnell's quest, its trigger and his open question without converting it into a claim about spending. The source calls hype 'slightly punctured' and later says 'if' it has been punctured; the reading's 'his sense' is acceptable. GPT-5 is not identified as an OpenAI model, but that does not prevent understanding. The title and question follow from the evidence. > So what should we make of my failed quest? date — pass: The reading gives October 28, 2025, which matches the UTC day of originalPublished. Related-story blurbs at the foot of the page may be later additions, but the reading does not use them. There is no hindsight framing, and the retrieval date is disclosed as a limitation. > First there was the underwhelming release of GPT-5 in August. support — pass: All three claims are stated in the source and attributed to O'Donnell. The 95% figure is presented as a report's finding, not as verified fact. The point that spending remains unclear is framed as a gap in the evidence, not as a conclusion. > Then a report released two weeks later found that 95% of generative AI pilots were failing, which caused a brief stock market panic. media — pass: No media was selected, and no verified candidates were supplied, so this is appropriate. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/c00c72c23f7a6df7e198ba152991875b2ff0b6387ddd60f5c49d8f18c7da9233/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/james-o-donnell-asks-in-mit-technology-review-why-no-company-c00c72c2.json)