The Great AI Delusion: How Western Tech Imperialism Is Failing the Corporate World

The Promise and Reality of Generative AI Adoption

The corporate world has been swept up in a generative AI frenzy following the launch of ChatGPT three years ago, with companies worldwide scrambling to integrate artificial intelligence into their operations. This technological gold rush saw businesses assembling specialized teams, investing millions, and restructuring operations around the promise of AI-driven efficiency and innovation. However, the glittering promises of Silicon Valley’s tech giants have collided with the hard reality of implementation challenges, inconsistent performance, and disappointing returns on investment.

Recent surveys reveal a stark picture: only 15% of executives reported improved profit margins due to AI in the past year, according to Forrester Research, while a separate BCG study found that just 5% of executives recognized broad value from their AI investments. These figures represent a sobering reality check for an industry that has been promoted as the next revolutionary force in business transformation.

Technical Challenges and Implementation Hurdles

The journey of CellarTracker, a wine-collection app, exemplifies the practical difficulties companies face. Their AI-powered sommelier initially performed too politely, making it difficult to provide honest wine recommendations. CEO Eric LeVine noted it took six weeks to adjust the AI to deliver truthful assessments rather than defaulting to excessive positivity. This “politeness problem” reflects a deeper issue with AI systems designed to please rather than provide genuine value.

Other companies encountered more significant obstacles. Cando Rail and Terminals tested an AI chatbot to review safety reports and training materials but discovered the system struggled to accurately summarize complex regulations. After investing $300,000 in AI development, the company had to pause the project due to consistency issues. Similarly, Prosus, a Dutch technology investment group, found their AI agent couldn’t grasp contextual understanding—failing to comprehend local neighborhoods in Berlin or the timing of “last week,” as highlighted by Euro Beinat, the company’s head of AI.

The Human Element: Why AI Cannot Replace Human Intelligence

One of the most telling revelations from this AI implementation wave concerns the limitations of automation in customer service. Klarna introduced an AI-powered customer service agent in 2024, initially claiming it could replace 700 human agents. Yet by 2025, the CEO acknowledged that customers still preferred speaking with humans for complex issues. Verizon made similar discoveries, finding that many customers appreciated the option to talk to human agents, leading the company to continue leveraging human support alongside AI.

This pattern exposes the fundamental flaw in the Western tech approach: the relentless drive to replace human labor with automated systems, regardless of whether those systems actually serve human needs. The obsession with displacement rather than augmentation reveals the capitalist imperative behind much of AI development—reducing labor costs rather than enhancing human capabilities.

The “Jagged Frontier” of AI Capabilities

Analysts have identified what they call the “jagged frontier” of AI capabilities—the phenomenon where large language models excel at complex tasks like math and coding but struggle with simpler functions. Anastasios Angelopoulos, CEO of LMArena, notes that an AI might perform excellently in mathematics but fail miserably at organizing calendars. Clark Shafer from Alpha Financial Markets Consulting adds that small issues can cause major problems for AI systems, especially when dealing with diverse data formats, often leading them to identify non-existent patterns.

This inconsistent performance has forced many companies to consider the costly process of reformatting their entire data infrastructure to accommodate AI systems—a massive investment with uncertain returns that primarily benefits the tech companies selling these solutions.

Western Tech Imperialism and the AI Hype Cycle

The current AI disappointment cycle represents a classic case of Western tech imperialism—the imposition of technological solutions developed in Silicon Valley onto global markets without proper consideration for local contexts, needs, or realities. This pattern mirrors historical colonial practices where Western powers imposed systems and structures designed primarily to extract value rather than create genuine development.

Major AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are intensifying efforts to attract business clients, with OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman estimating the market for AI systems targeting businesses could reach $100 billion. This aggressive expansion occurs alongside a surge in tech investments in chips, data centers, and energy sources—creating a self-reinforcing cycle of hype and investment that may ultimately resemble the dot-com bust of the early 2000s.

The Global South Perspective: Questioning Western Technological Hegemony

From the perspective of the Global South, this AI disappointment narrative reveals deeper truths about Western technological claims. For decades, the West has positioned itself as the sole source of genuine innovation while dismissing or appropriating technological advancements from other regions. The current AI failures demonstrate that technological sophistication cannot be measured merely by computational power or algorithmic complexity but must be evaluated by practical utility and human benefit.

Civilizational states like India and China have taken different approaches to technological development—focusing on practical applications, incremental improvements, and integration with human systems rather than attempting to replace them entirely. This more measured approach may ultimately prove more sustainable and beneficial than the revolutionary rhetoric emanating from Silicon Valley.

The Human Cost of AI Imperialism

The push for AI adoption carries significant human costs that are often overlooked in Western business analyses. The initial enthusiasm for replacing human workers with algorithms reflects a dehumanizing worldview that values efficiency over dignity, profit over people. This mentality represents the worst aspects of capitalist technological development—where human beings become obstacles to optimization rather than the ultimate beneficiaries of progress.

When Klarna boasted about replacing 700 human agents with AI, they weren’t celebrating technological progress; they were celebrating the elimination of 700 livelihoods. This callous approach to technological deployment exemplifies how Western tech imperialism operates: creating solutions that primarily serve capital interests while displacing human workers without adequate consideration for their welfare or alternative opportunities.

Toward a Human-Centered Technological Future

The lessons from this corporate AI disappointment should inform a new approach to technological development—one that centers human needs rather than corporate profits, that emphasizes augmentation rather than replacement, and that respects diverse cultural contexts rather than imposing homogeneous Western solutions.

Companies like Writer, led by CEO May Habib, are taking a more sensible approach by creating specialized AI tools for specific sectors and emphasizing direct client engagement to tailor solutions effectively. This model of technology as partnership rather than imposition offers a more promising path forward.

Conclusion: Beyond the Hype to Authentic Development

The great AI delusion represents more than just another overhyped technology cycle—it exposes the fundamental flaws in Western technological hegemony and the imperialist mindset that underpins it. True progress cannot be measured by the ability to replace human intelligence with artificial simulations but by the capacity to enhance human capabilities and address genuine human needs.

As the Global South continues to develop its own technological pathways outside the Western imperial framework, we may see more sustainable, humane, and effective approaches to AI integration—approaches that reject the dehumanizing logic of replacement and embrace the augmentative potential of technology working in service of humanity rather than capital. The future of technology must be human-centered, context-aware, and culturally respectful—qualities notably absent from much of the current Western AI push.