Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automate the CEOs

hamiltonnolan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Automate the CEOs

#61

Post by optimalsolver »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #24

Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…

Has anyone in the history of capitalism ever identified themselves as "middle management"?

I think most people associate the term middle management with the guy immediately above them.

Honestly, a lot of this resembles the "If only the Tsar knew!" mentality in old, imperial Russia.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#62

Post by moffkalast »

candiddevmike wrote: post #36
kristopolous wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They replace C-level people often and the relationship isn't what you imply. There's a structural power relationship in play. Monarchs play a fairly unimportant role these days but many countries still have them and compensate them handsomely. CEOs are structurally capitalist monarchs. Sometimes it's even a hereditary position. They even do the corporate equivalent of court and heraldry stuff. They're compensated not…

Most corporate structures are feudal. Folks should refer to their VPs as the Duke/Duchess of Engineering.

Well that's a shockingly fitting. You've got the king or several dukes who own all the land/assets, the middle management barons and the serfs who do the actual work and get a small share as payment.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#63

Post by paddy_m »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #34
nickelcitymario wrote: post #24

Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…

50% of what middle management is what secretaries used to do. If I ever run my own company I will hire a team of secretaries to work with my developers and our productivity will shoot through the roof. No everyone is organized, good at scheduling, following up on things, focusing at work, interpersonal discussions, sending memos, navigating bureaucracy, etc. A great secretary allows you to focus on getting developmen…

People forget the plan recommended by Brooks in the Mythical Man Month. Surgical teams with delegated duties led by an experienced surgeon. Positions of a secretary, language lawyer, documentation writer, (and others I forget). I would love to just once work or lead such team.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#64

Post by nickelcitymario »

b112 wrote: post #58
smcleod wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I have almost this exact conversation with folks all the time. The majority of managers are dead weight and often have a negative impact on performance and culture. Leaders (natural or learned) are incredibly valuable. Managers are overhead.

This already happened once, in the 80s. A massive reduction of the 'middle class', by eliminating massive amounts of middle management. Managers aren't overhead, it's an absurd statement, because it's an absolute. Managers allow leaders to extend their reach. Absolutely no leader can scale beyond a certain point. At all. Managers allow for that. They're essential, beyond a certain org size. Now, I will agree that som…

In the context of this conversation, if AI can perform those management tasks (not leadership, but management), then I think it's only a matter of time before they will.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I just think it's inevitable. I'd probably consider it a good thing if it wasn't for the loss of all those middle-class jobs.

This is also why I recommend Marshall Brain's "Manna". He nailed it. AI isn't coming for entry-level jobs. Not right away. Because manual labour is actually incredibly complex to replicate with AI. But it's coming for the middle, whether we like it or not.

I say this as someone who has spent most of my career in middle management, for context.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#65

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #34
nickelcitymario wrote: post #24

Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…

50% of what middle management is what secretaries used to do. If I ever run my own company I will hire a team of secretaries to work with my developers and our productivity will shoot through the roof. No everyone is organized, good at scheduling, following up on things, focusing at work, interpersonal discussions, sending memos, navigating bureaucracy, etc. A great secretary allows you to focus on getting developmen…

Hallelujah! I felt this exactly when I was a director managing about 40 people. I would say at least half my day was taken up with logistics. The amount of actual mentorship and engineering leadership I did was less than the amount of time I had do to compared with a lot of bureaucratic responsibilities of my job.

At the time, there was an admin assistant who worked for our CTO, and she was fantastic - extremely detail oriented, organized and proactive. I kept thinking "All my training is in software engineering, and yet I'm doing all these tasks that she is much better at." Kept thinking that if my job was "split" down the middle that everyone would be much happier and my company would be getting a much better deal, with people's time largely spent on the stuff they are best at.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#66

Post by nickelcitymario »

optimalsolver wrote: post #61
nickelcitymario wrote: post #24

Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…

Has anyone in the history of capitalism ever identified themselves as "middle management"? I think most people associate the term middle management with the guy immediately above them. Honestly, a lot of this resembles the "If only the Tsar knew!" mentality in old, imperial Russia.

I identify as middle management, for what it's worth.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#67

Post by dangerwill »

optimalsolver wrote: post #61
nickelcitymario wrote: post #24

Close. Automate middle management. All the things mentioned in the article really are prime candidates for automation. But that's management, not leadership. Management is primed to be automated. See Marshall Brain's book "Manna" for a great take on what's possible here. Leadership is not. LLMs are great at doing the right things when there's a general consensus on what the right things are. Best practices, etc. But…

Has anyone in the history of capitalism ever identified themselves as "middle management"? I think most people associate the term middle management with the guy immediately above them. Honestly, a lot of this resembles the "If only the Tsar knew!" mentality in old, imperial Russia.

This isn't a vague term, it means people who manage managers, but who aren't the very top level. You'd have to be pretty delusional to be actively managing a group of managers/teams and not realize you are middle management.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#68

Post by juneballoon »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #48
xp84 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope this isn’t a hot take, but after seeing the apparent endgame of “democracy” play out over the last 10 years or so, I’m fine with business being done using a completely contrasting system.

Is it the endgame of X if X is losing the fight? This has been the endgame of marketing.

[dead]

Re: Automate the CEOs

#69

Post by AndrewKemendo »

candiddevmike wrote: post #36
kristopolous wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They replace C-level people often and the relationship isn't what you imply. There's a structural power relationship in play. Monarchs play a fairly unimportant role these days but many countries still have them and compensate them handsomely. CEOs are structurally capitalist monarchs. Sometimes it's even a hereditary position. They even do the corporate equivalent of court and heraldry stuff. They're compensated not…

Most corporate structures are feudal. Folks should refer to their VPs as the Duke/Duchess of Engineering.

The modern corporation is literally a dictatorship:

"form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations."

Companies are *governed* by unimpeachable, unelected, all powerful groups that in practice treat employees like literal slaves (you don't have to be chattel or physically abused to be a slave). However because almost all employment agreements are exactly the same, it's the same law firms and laws that these orgs use over and over, essentially all corporations have colluded for this structure and type of employment power dynamic.

After all why wouldn't they, the "American dream" is to become a dictator in the capital class, free from exposure to dirty labor.

How do I know this?

I've been a CEO dictator for a company before and hated the structure. Now I'm trying to create a non-stock cooperative and all I get is head scratching from banks, lawyers etc... who have NO CONCEPT how to organize something that isn't in the boilerplate Delaware equity dictatorship construct.

Post reply on HN