In the beginning there was AI, and bosses everywhere lost their minds(失去理智，发疯) and said you must all use this technology no matter whether it is useful and no matter how much it costs. And they introduced AI leaderboards(排行榜) and came up with stupid words like “tokenmaxxing(代币最大化（网络新词）)”. And lo(瞧，看哪（古语）), usage did indeed rise. And then the bosses remembered some very basic concepts like “budgets” and realised that this might not be such a great idea after all. And then a different question rang through the boardrooms, and this question was about returns, and it was harder to answer.(然后另一个问题在董事会会议室回荡，这个问题关乎回报，更难回答。)
起初，人工智能出现了，各地的老板们都失去了理智，说你们必须都使用这项技术，不管它是否有用，也不管它花费多少。他们还推出了人工智能排行榜，并发明了“代币最大化”之类的愚蠢词汇。瞧，使用率确实上升了。然后老板们想起了一些非常基本的概念，比如“预算”，并意识到这可能终究不是个好主意。接着，另一个问题在董事会会议室里回荡，这个问题关乎回报，而且更难回答。
This potted(简略的，浓缩的) Genesis(《创世记》（圣经首卷）) of AI adoption is not entirely fair. As long as(只要) organisations are trying to encourage usage, it can still make sense to look at things like employees’ token consumption(代币消耗量). “I would expect software engineers to spend more money than a finance analyst,” says the boss of one software firm. “But anyone within finance, it shouldn’t be zero.”
这种对人工智能采用的简要“创世纪”描述并不完全公平。只要组织还在努力鼓励使用，关注员工代币消耗之类的指标仍然有意义。“我会预期软件工程师比财务分析师花费更多，”一家软件公司的老板说。“但财务部门的任何人，也不应该是零。”
But usage (also known as input) measures don’t tell you whether any value is being created. And even when AI is producing benefits, points out Mika Ruokonen of LUT University in Finland, lots of them accrue(累积，自然增长) quietly to individuals in the form of(以……的形式) scattered(分散的，零散的) time savings. If an extra hour or two of an employee’s time has been freed up to shop on Vinted(Vinted（二手时尚平台）), someone has benefited (mainly Vinted) but it isn’t your company (unless you work at Vinted).
但使用量（也称为投入）指标并不能告诉你是否创造了任何价值。而且，即使人工智能正在产生效益，芬兰LUT大学的米卡·鲁奥科宁指出，其中很多效益以零散节省时间的形式悄悄累积到个人身上。如果员工多出一两个小时的时间去Vinted上购物，有人受益了（主要是Vinted），但不是你的公司（除非你在Vinted工作）。