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

OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

overpaid.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 395 posts

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#101

Post by walrus01 »

mikert89 wrote: post #67
walrus01 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> living in NYC, I have met a ton of harvard/yale "CEOs" > they are absolutely clueless. That's because you aren't asking them about their college rowing days, yachting, collecting weird mechanical wristwatches, equestrian sports, the best restaurants in the Hamptons or other matters on which they are uniquely suited for and qualified.

This hits so close to home im not even sure how to reply. The horror of these people needing to actually have an indepth discussion about low level details of their business

Have you ever read the chapters in "American Psycho" where Patrick Bateman goes into a multi-page digression about the style and characteristics of very specific mid 1980s era pop music acts? Basically, like that.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#102

Post by runamuck »

CGP_Labs wrote: post #53

Considering AI's strengths and weaknesses, it makes sense that upper management—whose job often involves making decisions based on data and established practices—may be easier to replace with AI than frontline or essential workers, who constantly have to adapt to unpredictable situations. But if competing companies all start using AI to make similarly rational decisions, it will become much harder to gain an edge thr…

I worked for five companies in two years about a decade ago (Pre retail Gen-AI). All of them had the exact same mission slide deck. Same goals, same priorities, same strategy.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#103

Post by epolanski »

bratao wrote: post #54

I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…

I respect your opinion, but behind winners imho there's 99% being in the right place at the right time. And people change and so do their motivation.

I'm not saying top talent doesn't make the difference, I'm just saying that CVs and impressions aren't always completely related.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#104

Post by cmiles74 »

hoppp wrote: post #91
bratao wrote: post #54

I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…

Steve Jobs was a founder, not your average CEO hire. He built the company from scratch.

Is Steve Jobs even a good example of "the type of person I want to hire as CEO"? I think he probably is not.

He was a demonstrably bad CEO, so much so that the Apple board fired him. He then went on to get better at the job through running another two companies until, eventually, Apple purchased one of these companies (it was very much unsuccessful, BTW). Then he became CEO and the company and was, finally, phenomenally successful.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#105

Post by andsoitis »

cyclopeanutopia wrote: post #95
bratao wrote: post #54

I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…

"Top talent" - I'm curious, do you really believe this is a normal / proper / desirable way of talking about other people?

It is logical that there are people who are great at what they do and others who are not. We’ve all worked with both and if you are in the business of finding talented people, how else would you talk about it?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#106

Post by gherkinnn »

reactordev wrote: post #49

This is the kind of agent I want to see. Board rooms and executive management need to be just as scared as the rest of us.

You got it all wrong. You see, AGI (conveniently ignore the definition for now) might be able to replace everybody. In truth it will be uses by the C level to subjugate everybody else.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#107

Post by aqme28 »

bratao wrote: post #54

I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…

I feel like you're suffering from some sort of confirmation bias.

I've worked under a top talent CEO, and the company collapsed. He made some gambles and they just didn't work out. I am not convinced that a third-rate version of him would have done significantly worse.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#109

Post by frr149 »

bratao wrote: post #54

I know this is a common trope here, and yeah, plenty of MBA-type CEOs are trash. But speaking as a founder/CEO of a small company, the quality gap between an average hire and top talent at the director level is night and day. Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it. The times I regretted going with the 2nd or 3rd place candidate because they were cheaper ended up setting us back…

The same thing is true in software engineering: an AI model is equivalent to an average programer (average with a huge standard deviation). Averigua is better than half, but still way behind the top performers

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#110

Post by kibwen »

bluGill wrote: post #88
mikert89 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I think for the last 10-15 years, ivy types could legitimately just raise series A type money, run a company like shit, but capital was a moat and so ended up as CEOs. This is actually how the world works

You are confusing CEO pay with CEO ability. There is plenty of examples of companies doing poorly until a new CEO comes in, and others of a company doing well until the CEO retires and a replacement comes in. Ivy types have a poor history of figuring out which is which in advance though.

There's an equally valid hypothesis that a "good" CEO is just one that keeps their hands off the levers of power, doesn't rock the boat or fuck anything up, and quietly lets a good company perform; whereas a bad CEO is one who, due to ego and self-aggrandizement, can't help but impose themselves via meddling and prevent a good company from performing. By that measure, you might as well save yourself the executive compensation and potential for disaster by just not having a CEO at all, despite what the executive class would have you believe. The aristocracy of old also argued that their titles were earned and that society could not function without them.
Post reply on HN