Skip to main content

Testing AI and its claims

Testing AI and the claims made about it: model tests, the numbers traced to their source, and the fakes.

80% of AI projects fail. Nobody ever measured it.
Video

80% of AI projects fail. Nobody ever measured it.

17 September 2026
Watch

"80% of AI projects fail." You've seen it in pitch decks, board papers, keynote speeches. It's used to justify buying AI software, and to justify not buying it. I went looking for the study behind it. There isn't one.

Watch on YouTube (opens on YouTube in a new tab)
Social card reading: Check the source, they said. I did. The paper cited a Teams meeting. A number reaches you at full strength. Whatever qualified it does not.
Essay

Checking the source is not enough: I traced a number to a scientific paper and found a Teams meeting

14 September 2026
9 min read

Everyone tells you to check the source. Here is a case where a careful person does exactly that, reads the peer-reviewed paper, and still comes away believing…

Read More
Card reading: one paid to say it, the other paid nothing, and the cost is only half the sum.
Essay

The credibility test we run backwards: ask who they were paying

14 September 2026
10 min read

One researcher quit and forfeited unvested equity to warn about AI. Another said the same thing for free and kept his job. The test that sorts them is not what it cost but who they were paying, and this piece corrects the version of it I published a day earlier.

Read More
Social card reading: AI fails twice as often as IT? Nobody has checked. Same projects, same size of error, direction reversed: 5.8% became 94.2%.
Essay

AI vs IT project failure rate: the comparison has never been made

11 September 2026
10 min read

The claim that AI projects fail at twice the rate of ordinary IT projects has never been tested. The IT figure it leans on moved from 5.8% to 94.2% on the…

Read More
The sabotage is real. The 65% cover-up figure is from a different study. Below: Anthropic 13 August, three agents, no attacker. UK AISI 27 April, one agent, different task. 65% of 7%, four runs in a hundred.
Essay

Anthropic's agents sabotaged each other. The 65% cover-up figure is from another study.

4 September 2026
9 min read

The sabotage is real and well documented. The concealment figure attached to it comes from a different organisation, four months earlier, in a different task…

Read More
Epic's sepsis model missed two thirds of cases and the accuracy claim was never published. Below: 0.63 measured at Michigan Medicine, 0.76 to 0.83 claimed in internal documents, and five years on it is a Teams meeting.
Essay

Epic's sepsis model missed two thirds of cases. Its accuracy claim was never published.

28 August 2026
8 min read

The figure hundreds of hospitals bought against existed only in the vendor's internal documents. Five years on, it is a Teams meeting.

Read More
Seven of the nineteen figures measure nothing that has happened. Below: four predictions with no retrospective, one unsourced figure tracing to a remark about a 2017 column, plus an opinion range and an intention.
Essay

AI project failure rates: four questions that tell you whether the number means anything

26 August 2026
6 min read

I classified nineteen of the most-cited AI failure statistics. Seven of them measure nothing that has happened. Here are the four questions that separate the…

Read More
I went looking for the study behind 80% of AI projects fail. There isn't one. Below: RAND 2024 did 65 interviews and claimed no rate, footnote 13 points to a 2022 magazine profile, and the bottom of the chain is unnamed surveys of opinion.
Essay

"80% of AI projects fail" traces to a footnote one line long

21 August 2026
6 min read

The most repeated number in enterprise AI turns out to be a paraphrase of unnamed opinion surveys, quoted in a magazine profile of a vendor.

Read More
Nineteen headline statistics, seven of which measure nothing that happened. Below: the convergence is an artefact of definitions rather than a rate, the fatal omission precedes the model in all seven adverse cases, and the intervention is a checkpoint before irreversible commitment.
Paper

Why AI projects fail: 19 headline statistics, and what each one actually counts

21 August 2026
167 min read

Nineteen headline AI failure statistics, traced to source. Seven are not measurements of anything that happened.

Read More
Six AIs Said Graphify Uploads Your Code. I Checked.
Video

Six AIs Said Graphify Uploads Your Code. I Checked.

30 July 2026
Watch

Six AI models told me, with total confidence, that Graphify uploads your code to a server. They were wrong. So I ran it myself, measured what actually left the machine, and found a real privacy trap: just not the one they warned about.

Watch on YouTube (opens on YouTube in a new tab)
The privacy trap is real, just not the one everyone warned me about. Below: six AIs said it uploads your code, it does not, and the real gotcha is smaller and easy to miss.
Build Log

I Ran Graphify. The Privacy Trap Is Real, Just Not the One Everyone Warned Me About

20 June 2026
7 min read

Six AIs told me Graphify uploads your code. I checked by running it, and the actual gotcha is smaller, quieter, and easy to miss.

Read More
Six AIs handed me the same lie, in unison. Below: unanimous reads as corroboration, but it was one claim repeated, so I check the source before I publish.
Build Log

I Almost Told You a Lie. Six AIs Handed It to Me, in Unison.

17 June 2026
7 min read

A field note from researching Graphify: the real privacy model, the honest token numbers, and why I check the source before I publish.

Read More
Build Log

We Just Ran Our 2nd Benchmark Cycle. Here's What 21K API Calls and 12M Tokens Actually Looks Like.

8 March 2026
4 min read

Most benchmark sites publish once and call it done. We just completed our second cycle. Here's what multi-cycle data actually unlocks.

Read More
Build Log

I Built the Consumer Reports for AI SEO Tools. In 6 Days.

6 March 2026
2 min read

Six days ago, this didnt exist. Now its live with 32 tools scored across 51 dimensions by 6 AI models. Zero sponsors.

Read More
Build Log

We Scored 32 AI SEO Tools With 9,792 Tests. Here's What No One Else Will Tell You.

3 March 2026
5 min read

We just published the first independent benchmark of 32 AI search optimization tools. 9,792 evaluations. 6 AI models. Zero sponsors. Here's what we found.

Read More
Build Log

Why Our AI Search Benchmark Methodology Lives in a Public GitHub Repo

3 March 2026
5 min read

We published our entire scoring methodology — 51 dimensions, 128 evaluation prompts, 6 AI models. Here's why every benchmark should be transparent.

Read More
Build Log

I Built an AI Benchmark Platform in a Day. Here's Why It Matters.

2 March 2026
2 min read

27 tools. Every one says they're the best. Not one can prove it. I built AISearchArena.com to change that.

Read More
Build Log

Everyone's generating llms.txt. Which tool actually works?

28 February 2026
5 min read

I benchmarked 14 AI visibility tools so you don't have to. Here's what I found.

Read More
← PreviousPage 2 of 2