https://news.abnasia.org/blog/posts/en-microsoft-scales-back-ai-goals-because-almost-nobody-is-using-copilot-2732

This headline nailed it! Turns out, Microsoft just learned the hardest lesson in AI - distribution doesn’t beat usefulness 😳

Microsoft’s AI Copilot was supposed to be everywhere.

In Windows. In Office. In your workflow.

Turns out it’s mostly ignored.

Recent reports say Microsoft quietly cut internal Copilot sales targets by up to 50%.

Not because of vibes. Because of math.

→ Copilot ~14% market share → ChatGPT ~61% → Gemini sprinting into 2nd place

And this is with Microsoft’s insane advantage:

Windows + Office + Azure + OpenAI access 🤯

If that stack can’t force adoption, maybe the problem isn’t distribution. It’s value.

Enterprises tried Copilot. Piloted it. Demoed it. Bought licenses.

Then, employees opened ChatGPT in another tab.

Because most of today’s “AI agents” are confident interns with no context.

So when Microsoft says“70% of Fortune 500 have adopted Copilot”, what it really means is this:

Procurement bought it. Employees didn’t.

Most importantly, forcing AI into everything didn’t help.

People didn’t ask for:

→ AI in Paint → AI watching their documents → AI narrating PowerPoint like a hostage video

They asked for one thing: AI that actually saves time, or does something humans couldn’t do before.

Right now, Copilot does neither.

Some extra link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF4VccxdNEg

Test Confirms Copilot Can’t Do What Microsoft’s Ad Shows - https://propakistani.pk/2025/12/20/test-confirms-copilot-cant-do-what-microsofts-ad-shows/

AI search engines fail accuracy test, study finds 60% error rate - https://www.techspot.com/news/107101-new-study-finds-ai-search-tools-60-percent.html

    • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
      15·
      16 days ago

      I mean you can state that, but most disagree. We’re very in as lemmy bubble here.

      Manual coding is buggy too. If your non ai assisted code was buggy, so still will be your assisted code. I think the idea that its inherently a bug exponentializer sounds more like cope than grounded reality.

      More than that, code focused llms can be much more efficient with the targeted focus and if someone desires, can be based on permissively licensed code.