What the end deliverable of the plan is doesn't matter: effectively it's the company demonstrating it can "do AI," so that if it becomes existentially necessary, the company's ability to execute is already known.
Absent demonstration, hell, the company might not even be retaining useful historical data. (E.g. theft data at a major US retailer)
I'm not even saying it's unmitigatedly a negative thing. When the question "What are we going to actually do with XML?" came up, many had good ideas, and useful tech investments started getting past boards that wouldn't otherwise have. -- So there was a lot of "collateral goodness".
But people also started ripping out databases and purpose-built DSLs from existing applications just so they could replace them with something XML-based.
As a way of making tech investments, it's weak. If it's 1999 and I'm asked to invest in a tech company that makes a damned good XML parser and nothing else, I'm well advised to not invest. And if I'm a CTO in a non-tech business asked to start replacing database servers with XML files, I'm well advised to not do it.
It depends who you're selling to. If customers are asking for a way to deal with LLMs, then providing that is a perfectly fine value proposition. The "do what" is going to depend on the customer.
But this is still the "language of hype". LLM integration to do what? I'm not saying they're not doing anything useful, just that this is not a way to describe either a productivity-enhancing technology (feature) or an actual value proposition (benefit) in a meaningful way.