FlashFeed

Full text

AI investment is accelerating across enterprises.

Budgets are increasing, boardrooms are asking hard questions, and the answer they’re getting back is token costs, prompt counts, and copilot deployment numbers.

Those aren't business metrics. They're activity logs.

Most organizations have settled on those numbers because they’re easy to track and show up well in reports. The problem is that those numbers measure the activity, not the results.

They show how much AI is being used, not whether the business is doing better since implementing it.

This is where token maxxing starts. It happens when organizations begin rewarding those who use AI the most, rather than what it actually delivers.

By optimizing for the wrong thing, we’re quietly setting AI programs up to fail.

When metrics become the mission

There’s a simple truth in business: people optimize for what gets measured, and we’re seeing that with AI right now. Understandably, because teams begin to generate more output when that is what leadership tends to see and reward.

Over time, the measure becomes the mission, and the focus on real outcomes starts to drift. The result is a surge in output that looks impressive on paper but has little to do with faster decisions or better products.

Teams with the highest usage or spend start to become the benchmark that others feel they need to match. But metrics like token spend should be evaluated the same way any other business investment is.

If we committed the same budget to a new sales tool or a go-to-market campaign, the first question from the board would be: how did revenue increase, and did it move the business forward in a measurable way?

High token consumption with no clear line to a business outcome is not a success story. Without that connection, it is just an additional cost. Meanwhile, the organizations that figure this out first will move faster with less spend — and that gap compounds.

AI did not create the problem; it exposed it

We’ve seen this pattern before. In the early days of cloud computing , companies moved fast and invested heavily without rethinking how work was structured. Costs went up, but the outcomes didn’t always follow.

That wasn't a cloud problem. And this isn't an AI problem. It never was.

The reality is that most companies already had a structural issue long before AI arrived. The work that matters most doesn’t live in a single system. It stretches across teams, tools and departments, held together by people stitching context together and filling in the gaps between systems. That’s always been the case. What AI has done is expose it, and this is where the problem runs deeper than just metrics.

AI makes individuals faster within the tools they already use. But when that work still sits inside disconnected systems, speed doesn’t fix the problem; it makes the gaps more visible. Teams move faster, but not necessarily together, and that’s why usage metrics can look so strong. More prompts, more output, more activity. On the surface, it looks like progress, but without a clear connection to outcomes, that activity can quickly become noise.

The problem isn’t just that we’re measuring the wrong thing. It’s also that most organizations don’t have a clear view of outcomes in the first place.

What good measurement looks like

Stop asking how much AI is being used and start asking what has changed because of it. A few shifts that will follow:

Output volume does not equal business value. Treat the two as interchangeable, and your AI program is already starting to drift.

Start with the outcome, not the tool. Instead of asking, “How many prompts did we run?” ask, “What did we achieve?”

Measure what crosses teams. If impact stays inside a single function, you have a useful tool — not a competitive advantage.

Here are a couple of examples: for engineering teams, this could mean focusing less on lines of code or pull requests and more on what actually reaches production and delivers value to customers. For marketing , it might be focusing on whether campaigns launch faster or land better.

Ultimately, AI that makes one person’s morning easier is a useful tool, but real value comes from AI that changes how the whole company gets work done. Without that, you end up with intelligent tools that operate in isolation. Helpful in moments but limited in impact.

Redefine what good looks like

Right now, most of the AI conversation is still focused on individual productivity — how much faster one person can write, code, analyze, or create. That matters. But it’s only part of the story.

The bigger opportunity sits at the organizational level and looks at how work actually moves across teams, systems and the company as a whole. AI can absolutely improve how businesses operate, but only if we are willing to ask harder questions about what we are actually measuring and why.

The companies that pull ahead won’t be the ones using AI the most. They’ll be the ones who changed what they measure when AI showed up. That’s the only metric that matters.

Use the best business cloud storage to manage your data .

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives , our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Full text

WASHINGTON — Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pressing forward with his effort to help Americans stop taking psychiatric drugs, a medical practice known as deprescribing.

Earlier this month, dozens of mental health professionals met with federal health officials to map out forthcoming clinical guidance they hope will help providers instruct patients on how to come off of antidepressant medications. While the Department of Health and Human Services has discussed plans to hold such a meeting, the outlines of the discussion haven’t been reported.

During those talks, they reviewed guidance from European nations and worked on recommendations for nonmedication-based options for patients to address their mental health, such as therapy. A senior HHS official said they discussed gaps in the research around deprescribing SSRIs, including the side effects a person may experience, which vary depending on the drug and how long the person was on it, and how to recognize the difference between those side effects and a return of a patient’s depressive symptoms.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…