In the fast-evolving world of technology, generative artificial intelligence has sparked intense debate about its true value, with some experts suggesting it might ultimately prove worthless—a scenario that could paradoxically benefit society. Drawing from a recent analysis in The Conversation, the argument posits that if generative AI fails to deliver substantial economic returns, it could redirect resources toward more impactful innovations, much like past tech bubbles that eventually fostered genuine progress.

This perspective challenges the hype surrounding tools like ChatGPT, which exploded onto the scene in late 2022, captivating users with their ability to generate text, images, and code. Yet, as adoption surges, questions arise about whether these systems provide lasting productivity gains or merely novelty. Recent reports indicate that while generative AI can automate routine tasks, its limitations in accuracy and creativity often lead to underwhelming results in real-world applications.

The Economic Mirage of AI Investments

Industry analyses reveal a stark contrast between soaring investments and tangible returns. A study highlighted in The Economic Times from August 2025 cites MIT research showing that 95% of generative AI projects are failing to generate meaningful revenue, despite over $44 billion poured into startups this year. This failure rate echoes concerns voiced in KRON4, where a report on the “GenAI Divide” notes that most companies see zero return on investment, prompting fears of an AI bubble bursting.

Critics argue that generative AI’s high computational costs and environmental footprint further diminish its worth. For instance, training large models consumes massive energy, raising sustainability issues that outweigh benefits in sectors like content creation, where AI-generated material often requires heavy human editing to meet quality standards.

Societal Backlash and Ethical Quandaries

Beyond economics, the debate extends to societal impacts, with growing backlash against AI’s biases and stereotypes. A 2023 feature in Bloomberg exposed how tools like Stable Diffusion amplify racial and gender biases worse than real-world data, fueling calls for regulation. More recent sentiments on X, formerly Twitter, reflect this unease, with users debating AI’s role in creative industries, some predicting a market stabilization in 2025 as the initial rush fades.

Interestingly, if generative AI proves “worthless” in commercial terms, it might encourage a pivot to ethical AI development. As discussed in Mirage News, this outcome could be positive, freeing up capital for technologies that address pressing global challenges like climate change or healthcare, rather than perpetuating profit-driven hype.

Market Projections Versus Reality

Despite the pessimism, optimistic forecasts persist. A PR Newswire release projects the global generative AI market to skyrocket from $49.3 billion in 2024 to $2,427.19 billion by 2035, driven by applications in enterprise workflows. Similarly, posts on X highlight Meta’s prediction of $1.4 trillion in AI revenue by 2035, underscoring potential in high-tech and retail sectors.

However, these projections clash with ground-level realities. A Wired article from June 2025 details an intensifying AI backlash, where proliferation leads to pushback over job displacement and misinformation. Industry insiders note that while AI excels in niche tasks, its broad “worthlessness” stems from overhyped expectations not matching performance.

Lessons from Historical Tech Cycles

Historically, technologies like the dot-com era’s internet boom faced similar skepticism before maturing. A Fortune piece from September 2025 shifts focus from AI consciousness debates to practical utility, arguing that human-like intelligence isn’t necessary for value—yet current models fall short in reliability.

Ultimately, the worth of generative AI may lie not in immediate profits but in catalyzing broader innovation. If it fizzles, as suggested in a Globe and Mail opinion from 2024 calling it a “waste of time and money,” it could steer the tech industry toward sustainable, human-centered advancements, proving that sometimes, perceived failure paves the way for true progress.