Catastrophe events are capable of generating more than 100,000 claims in just days
【洞察】灾难事件可能在数天内产生 10 万件索赔——这正是 AI 相对于人类客服最核心的优势场景：极端峰值负载。Travelers 的案例证明了「弹性 AI 客服」的商业价值：不是用 AI 替代正常业务量，而是用 AI 承担「人力永远无法应对的浪涌」。对所有有周期性业务高峰的行业（灾害、税季、促销等），这是 AI 客服最无可辩驳的 ROI 论据。
It's very enticing to say we're just going to replace everything with a chatbot, but it's not changing the bottom line.
大多数人认为全面采用AI聊天机器人会显著提高效率和降低成本，但作者指出这种做法虽然在诱惑上很强，但实际上并未改变公司的底线。这一观点挑战了AI替代人工能带来显著财务收益的主流假设，强调了实际业务价值评估的重要性。
95% of organizations are getting zero return on AI deployed, with most failures found due to 'brittle workflows.'
尽管AI投资激增，但绝大多数企业未能获得任何回报，这与主流认知中AI能显著提升效率的观点相悖。这一发现表明，AI实施失败的主要原因不是技术本身，而是工作流程设计不当，暗示企业需要重新思考如何将AI整合到现有工作流程中，而非简单叠加技术。
95% of organizations are getting zero return on AI deployed, with most failures found due to 'brittle workflows.'
尽管AI投资激增，但绝大多数企业未能获得任何回报。这与主流认为AI能自动带来显著效益的观点形成鲜明对比，暗示AI实施失败的主要问题不在于技术本身，而在于工作流程设计不当，这是一个反直觉的发现。
An IBM survey of 2,000 CEOs revealed that just 25% of AI projects deliver on their promised return on investment. The main driver of adoption, it seems, is corporate FOMO, with nearly two-thirds of CEOs agreeing that “the risk of falling behind drives them to invest in some technologies before they have a clear understanding of the value they bring to the organization,” according to the study.
New stat from IBM? This is similar to the RAND figure from before?