tags. We'll translate the text inside.
First paragraph: "A new KPMG report finds that just 7% of business leaders can demonstrate a return on their artificial intelligence investments. The rest are pouring money into AI without being able to show it actually pays off."
Danish: "En ny KPMG-rapport viser, at kun 7% af virksomhedslederne kan dokumentere et afkast på deres investeringer i kunstig intelligens. Resten bruger penge på AI uden at kunne vise, at det faktisk betaler sig."
We need to keep the meaning. "demonstrate a return" -> "dokumentere et afkast". "pouring money" -> "bruger penge" or "hælder penge" but "pouring" implies large amounts, so "hælder penge" is more literal. But "bruger penge" is fine. I'll use "hælder penge" for emphasis. Also "pays off" -> "betaler sig".
Second paragraph: "The report paints a stark picture: most executives are convinced AI is creating value, but they can't back that conviction with numbers. That disconnect is more than an accounting problem. It's a strategic one. If a company can't measure what an AI system returns, it can't decide where to double down, where to cut, or even whether the whole effort is worth it."
Danish: "Rapporten tegner et dystert billede: de fleste ledere er overbeviste om, at AI skaber værdi, men de kan ikke underbygge den overbevisning med tal. Den afbrydelse er mere end et regnskabsmæssigt problem. Det er et strategisk. Hvis en virksomhed ikke kan måle, hvad et AI-system returnerer, kan den ikke beslutte, hvor den skal satse mere, hvor den skal skære ned, eller endda om hele indsatsen er det værd."
"double down" -> "satse mere" or "dobbelt ned" but better "satse mere". "where to cut" -> "hvor den skal skære ned". "the whole effort is worth it" -> "om hele indsatsen er det værd".
Third paragraph: "KPMG's finding suggests the perceived value of AI is running far ahead of the hard evidence. Executives may be hearing success stories from peers, seeing flashy demos, and feeling pressure to keep up. But when asked to show the actual return on a specific AI project, most come up empty."
Danish: "KPMG's resultat tyder på, at den opfattede værdi af AI løber langt foran de hårde beviser. Ledere hører måske succeshistorier fra kolleger, ser flotte demoer og føler pres for at følge med. Men når de bliver bedt om at vise det faktiske afkast på et konkret AI-projekt, står de fleste tomme."
"come up empty" -> "står tomme" or "kommer tomme". I'll use "står tomme".
Fourth paragraph: "Part of the issue is that AI costs are often scattered. There's the obvious spend on software and cloud compute, but also the hidden outlays: data cleaning, integration work, retraining staff, and the time engineers spend tweaking models. Many finance teams don't have a clear line on those expenses, so they can't match them against the benefits AI is supposed to generate."
Danish: "En del af problemet er, at AI-omkostningerne ofte er spredt. Der er de åbenlyse udgifter til software og cloud-computing, men også de skjulte udgifter: datarensning, integrationsarbejde, genoptræning af personale og den tid, ingeniører bruger på at finjustere modeller. Mange økonomiteams har ikke et klart overblik over disse udgifter, så de kan ikke matche dem mod de fordele, AI formodes at generere."
"cloud compute" -> "cloud-computing". "hidden outlays" -> "skjulte udgifter". "data cleaning" -> "datarensning". "integration work" -> "integrationsarbejde". "retraining staff" -> "genoptræning af personale". "tweaking models" -> "finjustere modeller". "finance teams" -> "økonomiteams".
Fifth paragraph: "Without that tracking, accountability gets fuzzy. If an AI system doesn't deliver, who's responsible? The team that built it? The vendor that sold it? The executives who approved it? The report implies that the lack of rigorous cost tracking makes it nearly impossible to assign responsibility or learn from failures."
Danish: "Uden den sporing bliver ansvarligheden sløret. Hvis et AI-system ikke leverer, hvem er så ansvarlig? Teamet, der byggede det? Leverandøren, der solgte det? Ledelsen, der godkendte det? Rapporten antyder, at manglen på stringent omkostningssporing gør det næsten umuligt at placere ansvar eller lære af fejl."
"accountability" -> "ansvarlighed". "fuzzy" -> "sløret". "vendor" -> "leverandør". "executives" -> "ledelsen" or "ledere". I'll use "ledelsen" for the group.
Sixth paragraph: "The KPMG report doesn't offer a magic formula, but it does point to a clear need: better measurement and more disciplined oversight of AI spending. That means building cost-tracking systems that can follow a dollar from the initial investment to the eventual outcome, and then asking hard questions about whether the outcome was worth it."
Danish: "KPMG-rapporten tilbyder ikke en magisk formel, men den peger på et klart behov: bedre måling og mere disciplineret tilsyn med AI-udgifter. Det betyder at opbygge omkostningssporingssystemer, der kan følge en dollar fra den oprindelige investering til det endelige resultat, og derefter stille hårde spørgsmål om, hvorvidt resultatet var det værd."
"follow a dollar" -> "følge en dollar" but we might say "følge en krone" since it's Danish, but the article says "dollar" so we keep it. Actually, we can translate to "en krone" if we want to localize, but the original says "a dollar" so we can keep "dollar" for consistency. I'll keep "dollar".
Seventh paragraph: "It also suggests that companies should treat AI like any other capital investment. You wouldn't buy a factory without knowing its expected output. AI projects deserve the same scrutiny. The 7% figure is a warning that most organizations are flying blind on some of their most expensive bets."
Danish: "Det foreslår også, at virksomheder bør behandle AI som enhver anden kapitalinvestering. Du ville ikke købe en fabrik uden at kende dens forventede output. AI-projekter fortjener samme granskning. De 7% er en advarsel om, at de fleste organisationer flyver blind
