271–280 of 363 posts
This article isn't actually suggesting that CEOs can be automated, it's making a modest proposal in order to point out that CEOs are overvalued and that automation is eliminating jobs for a lot of undervalued workers. Just putting that out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Sell shit online” is such an inobvious idea. I don’t know how Bezos thought it up! Completely unexpected.
Then why is he the richest man on earth and you're not ? It's always obvious and easy when you look back at history ...
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of morally dubious things he was willing to do in the pursuit of being the richest motherfucker on the planet that I'm not willing to do, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then what? Everyone is allocated the same by the state? A society where no-one has any function to society and where the state allocates resources to individuals sounds more dystopian than utopian to me...
I was merely stating what I expect to happen, not what I want. It sounds pretty bad to me as well. Not worse than poverty, but meaningless and boring otherwise. Some people will make their own meaning, but many won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was merely stating what I expect to happen, not what I want. It sounds pretty bad to me as well. Not worse than poverty, but meaningless and boring otherwise. Some people will make their own meaning, but many won't.
Do you really think the people who wouldn't make their own meaning are finding tons of purpose in their current jobs?
CEOs aren't paid for the day-to-day value they provide to the company. They're paid for the long-term, strategic value the owners think they might provide the company in comparison to other candidates. So if you think CEO Candidate X will make you a 3x return on your investment, but CEO Candidate Y will make you a 5x return, it's almost certainly worth it to pay him/her the extra $200K to get you there, if that's the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are the people in b) okay with overpaying for something?
Because they're also getting overpayed in a similar situation at a different company. It's in their direct interest to raise the "market rate"
This is all very silly. Upper management is payed a lot in stock to assure loyalty to ownership. This is a crucial component to enforcing the shareholder theory of value: a legal prerogative that was being eroded in the mid 20th century as industry became more complex, workers became more empowered, and absentee ownership had a harder time holding onto the reigns.
Do you mean that the stockholders need to pay a ransom to not have the executives wreck the corp? It has long been mine suspicion too.
The modern corperation is internally a very large feudal society ("manors within manors"), shareholders are completely absentee, and the secondary markets do not directly effect the balance sheet.
I should cite the posts in https://jwmason.org/slackwire/tag/corporate-governance/, some of which I were paraphrasing, and others which I haven't read before but are also interesting in a forum ostensibly run for "founders" by "friendly VCs"!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Sell shit online” is such an inobvious idea. I don’t know how Bezos thought it up! Completely unexpected.
Then why is he the richest man on earth and you're not ? It's always obvious and easy when you look back at history ...
I was smart enough to hire for technical work, from development to training and documentation, but lacked the social skills to negotiate or build so I spent a lot of my 20s doing Very Clever Things for which other people reaped all the economic and strategic rewards. So you can be very competent and have a lot of imagination, but if you're not in the right place at the right time or work in an environment with a lot of gatekeepers, you may not be able to capitalize successfully. You can also find that you're so good in a particular role that people who pay you for it have an incentive to not help you with career development.
Persoanlly, I don’t see automated CEOs as a viable option for the foreseeable future.
Automation usually works best with consistent and repeatable functions right?
And automation usually works worst with diverse, infrequent, and unusually functions right?
Could a CEO’s roles and responsibilities be somewhat split(with some grey area delineation) between hard and soft skills?
Automation support for senior leadership hard skills seems like a logical extension of recent automation capabilities.
In fact, I could imagine a well branded AI/human teaming decision support service becoming the new high-end executive health service status symbol.
If companies are willing to expand and experiment with very high end health care support to senior leadership as a means to ensure high cognitive functioning then it would be a natural extension to include bespoke AI/ML decision support for senior leadership.
Where else would bespoke AI/ML decision support for individuals originate and gain traction?
It seems inevitable that it would originate where the opportunity cost is greatest.
So CEO/AI teaming seems ripe for exploitation today, but a fully automated CEO still seems completely unreachable.
However, if it emerges I would imagine it will do so first in business units with extremely high simplicity, repeatability, and predictability.
CEOs aren't paid for the day-to-day value they provide to the company. They're paid for the long-term, strategic value the owners think they might provide the company in comparison to other candidates. So if you think CEO Candidate X will make you a 3x return on your investment, but CEO Candidate Y will make you a 5x return, it's almost certainly worth it to pay him/her the extra $200K to get you there, if that's the…
Nice. We finally found the guy who believes this fairy tale!