Is your business “doing AI” just to say you’re doing AI? Because the breathless coverage of artificial intelligence sweeping through the Fox Cities – and frankly, everywhere else – obscures a far more important question: is it actually helpful? The Fox Cities Chamber’s recent Business Outlook Survey reveals that nearly 40% of local businesses are experimenting with AI, with 22% already implementing it. That sounds like progress, but the real story here isn't widespread adoption – it's the growing disconnect between the hype around AI and its practical value for those on the ground.
Laura Wiegert, Executive Vice President of the Fox Cities Chamber, frames this as “positive” and a sign of “responsible, ethical adoption.” And certainly, the idea of small businesses leveraging tools like ChatGPT to draft social media posts or create basic graphics sounds appealing. Wiegert points to larger manufacturers integrating AI into workflow automation, suggesting a more sophisticated application. But the survey doesn’t tell us how well these implementations are working, only that they’re happening. We’re measuring activity, not impact. A 22% implementation rate is notable, but it’s less impressive when you consider how many businesses are likely chasing a solution to a problem they didn’t fully define.
See the original fox11online.com story for the full account.
The experience of Adam Bartlett, owner of record shop Eroding Winds, offers a bracing counterpoint. Bartlett isn’t interested. In fact, he’s actively hostile to the idea of generative AI touching his business. His blunt assessment – “Never, because AI is writing it and it's garbage” – is a sentiment you won’t find in most Chamber of Commerce press releases. He argues that every software update driven by AI degrades the user experience, making point-of-sale systems demonstrably worse. This isn’t a Luddite rejection of technology; it’s a pragmatic observation about the quality of AI-generated output. Bartlett isn’t against all AI, conceding that background systems handling tedious tasks could be beneficial, as long as the user doesn’t directly interact with the results.
This distinction – front-facing versus back-end AI – is crucial. The Chamber’s survey lumps all AI use together, obscuring the fact that some applications are genuinely useful while others are actively detrimental. Think about it like electricity: powering a factory is different than a flickering, unreliable lightbulb. The problem isn’t the power source, it’s how it’s applied. And right now, a lot of businesses are installing those flickering lightbulbs and calling it innovation. The focus on generative AI, the kind that creates text and images, is particularly concerning because it directly impacts creative work, devaluing the skills of artists and writers. Bartlett’s concern about AI “damaging the work of artists” isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about the economic viability of creative professions.
Wiegert acknowledges the need for a “roadmap and a strategy” for responsible AI adoption, urging businesses to avoid simply jumping on the bandwagon. But that advice feels reactive, a damage control measure after the hype train has already left the station. The Chamber is essentially telling businesses to think before they leap, after most have already started running. The real challenge isn’t ethical adoption; it’s discerning genuine value from empty promises. The current rush to integrate AI feels less like a strategic evolution and more like a collective anxiety about being left behind.
Here’s what to watch for: in the next six months, expect to see a significant increase in businesses quietly abandoning AI tools that don’t deliver tangible benefits. The initial excitement will give way to a cold, hard cost-benefit analysis, and a lot of those 40% experimenting will quietly revert to doing things the old-fashioned way. The question isn’t whether AI will change business, but whether businesses will allow AI to change for the worse.
