Editorial analysis: Practitioners should treat ROI metrics as multi-dimensional when evaluating AI investments, weighting measurable cost reductions alongside less-tangible gains such as faster learning cycles, expanded decision-making capacity, and newly creatable products or services. This changes how ML project success is defined, how experiments are prioritized, and how teams justify infra and tooling spend.
What happened
Brian Solis published an essay titled "In an Era of AI Darwinism, ROI Now Represents Return on Intelligence" on June 29, 2026, framing the current competitive moment as AI Darwinism, where adaptation trumps raw automation (Solis, June 29, 2026). Solis writes that automation can remove drudgery but warns that treating automation as a strategy narrows imagination and risks making organizations less capable. The piece cites ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermett, writing that organizations should "take the soul crushing work out of our day-to-day potential," to illustrate automation's legitimate role in removing low-value tasks.
Editorial analysis - technical and product implications
Solis's distinction between automation and augmentation maps to practical design choices: automation projects typically optimize repeatable workflows and reduce latency or headcount exposure; augmentation projects invest in human-in-the-loop interfaces, decision-support models, and tooling that increase cognitive throughput. For ML engineering teams, this means tracking different KPIs, throughput, error rate, and cost-per-transaction for automation; knowledge retention, time-to-insight, and enabling metrics for augmentation experiments.
Context and significance
Industry coverage and vendor messaging increasingly emphasize augmentation and human+AI workflows. Observed patterns in similar transitions: organizations that pair model-driven assistance with redesigned processes and explicit learning loops tend to surface higher-value use cases over time. Solis's essay joins that narrative by urging leaders to value what AI enables beyond immediate cost savings.
What to watch
- •Whether product and analytics teams start reporting learning-centric KPIs (e.g., model-enabled discovery rates).
- •If procurement and finance accept non-cost ROI metrics when approving AI platforms.
- •How engineering orgs allocate effort between maintenance/automation and exploratory augmentation work.
Solis's post is a strategic framing rather than a technical roadmap; it foregrounds a shift in evaluation criteria for AI initiatives rather than announcing new products or empirical results.
Key Points
- 1Reframing ROI to "Return on Intelligence" encourages measuring learning, discovery, and capability creation, not only cost savings.
- 2Automation optimizes existing processes; augmentation expands cognitive capacity and often requires redesigned workflows and KPIs.
- 3Practitioners should track both operational metrics and learning-enabled metrics to surface higher-value AI use cases over time.
Scoring Rationale
This essay provides a strategic framing relevant to AI/DS teams deciding how to prioritize projects and metrics. It is notable for influencing evaluation practice but does not present new technical results or major industry moves.
Practice with real Ad Tech data
90 SQL & Python problems · 15 industry datasets
250 free problems · No credit card
See all Ad Tech problems