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

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: Automate the CEOs

#121

Post by bumby »

lordnacho wrote: post #87
calvinmorrison wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whatever happened to secretaries anyway? Were they really cost-cut for managers to do by themselves? You're right though, it's a valuable job being the glue of a business. In more than one way, not just work-wise. Social stuff matters too, and was often the domain of the secretaries.

In theory, they were replaced by technology. Answering machine (later voicemail), word processor/grammar checkers, email calendars, etc.

Part of the problem is that some of the time this was supposed to free up was consumed by managing the tech itself.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#122

Post by nickelcitymario »

__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.

As a marketer, I'm curious about what you mean by this. What are you saying is marketing's endgame? (I'm not sure if I'll agree or disagree yet.)

Re: Automate the CEOs

#123

Post by Balgair »

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…

Rao's The Gervais Principle would argue that middle managers are essential.

His interpretation of them is that they act as the carbon control rods in the nuclear reaction of capitalism. Prior to their invention, we had workers and owners. And then we had a lot of strikes and worker solidarity and other nasty socialist things like that. Then we invented middle managers for all the workers to get mad at instead and shield the owners from all the ire and rock throwing.

Rao's interpretation is overtly tongue-in-cheek, but makes a good point. That middle managers aren't strictly there for productivity, but act also in an emotional/human-nature/psychological capacity.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#124

Post by starbugs »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #117
starbugs wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what really would make that lift off is if that system would be considerably better at that than the average CEO. It wouldn't even matter if it was cheaper then.

I suppose I’m thinking about in the long run, but yes if you could build Manna today - it would be certainly be implemented somewhere at significant cost.

Just thinking this might be a possible avenue for it to be developed. If the reward is having a higher revenue margin than the competition, then it would be worth the (nearly any) investment.

Reminds me of this ST Voyager episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Care_(Star_Trek:_Voya...

Re: Automate the CEOs

#125

Post by nickelcitymario »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #116
nickelcitymario wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear more about your non-stock cooperative. How is it structured? I'm genuinely fascinated.

Thanks! See my reply above, I don’t want to repost cause it looks spammy.

It's an interesting structure! A couple of thoughts popped out as I read your articles of incorporation.

(1) Instead of saying a representative can't represent more than 10-100 people, have you considered making it a percentage of the membership? Making it a hard number seems potentially inflexible as the organization grows.

(2) Making it a requirement that the CEO be a part of the organization for 4 years before running would imply that either the first CEO didn't have to meet such criteria, or that there is no CEO for the first 4 years.

Very curious to follow your journey!

Re: Automate the CEOs

#126

Post by notacoward »

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…

AI could replace bad managers, of which there are too many, but not good ones. Can an AI provide a sense of connection to higher levels or other parts of the company? Not even possible. Can an AI motivate? Can it resolve conflict? Doubtful at best. I certainly wouldn't trust one with any of the more therapy-adjacent things that a good manager does, and that's a big part of the job if they're doing it right.

The problem with so much management - the reason the rest of us hate it - is that it's already too formulaic, too inhumane and empathy-free, too much of people as machines rather than as people. Replacing that with actual machines is not the solution. It's just more cost-cutting at the expense of workers.

(Yes, I realize OP was satire. The points on both sides still stand.)

Re: Automate the CEOs

#127

Post by kristopolous »

xp84 wrote: post #40
candiddevmike wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

You should consider all possible systems then and include the possibility that the system your criticizing isn't a very good democracy or maybe is democratic in ineffectual ways.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#128

Post by AndrewKemendo »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #125
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! See my reply above, I don’t want to repost cause it looks spammy.

It's an interesting structure! A couple of thoughts popped out as I read your articles of incorporation. (1) Instead of saying a representative can't represent more than 10-100 people, have you considered making it a percentage of the membership? Making it a hard number seems potentially inflexible as the organization grows. (2) Making it a requirement that the CEO be a part of the organization for 4 years before run…

The challenge with any constitution is figuring out where to be inconsistent or not free from vulnerability and unfortunately there’s no right answer to how.

In both of those cases the spirit it to build structural breakpoints in such that it’s harder to accelerate than it is to stop. In my experience speed is what kills ethics.

So my guess is that we’ll be without a CEO for a while so our annual plan etc processes won’t really start in earnest until we’re at a certain size.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#129

Post by huijzer »

Although there are probably some poor CEOs, it seems to be that most CEOs occupy a power law in their domain. Although you might not agree with their methods, you have to agree that people such as Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk, are extremely good in raising and allocating capital. Automation is unlikely to automate these people anytime soon.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#130

Post by graypegg »

topaz0 wrote: post #112
graypegg wrote: post #81

I’m no expert in business or management, but I feel like leadership plays a very “human” role? As in, you need to wheel-and-deal favours, get people excited, inspire confidence etc. If someone was going to make me chat with a chat bot to hash out some buy-out, or some big pitch for something, I’m not taking them seriously. At least a human has the smoke screen of “friendly person”, a LLM (even if read by a human) is…

Right. The point is that capitalism is the economic system built to optimally remove money from you and redistribute it to owners. So sure the idea wouldn't work because it would be making the game explicit (as you say, "too on the nose"), rather than hiding it behind mythology. Another point of the article is that the AI hype is also all about playing this game (disciplining workers so that their labor can be more e…

Should make it clear, I’m not saying being a (human) CEO is some altruistic career. Capitalism will burn us all to the ground.

But AI CEO is so blatantly “saying the quiet part out loud” that it’s just comically maligned.

Post reply on HN