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

111–120 of 395 posts

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#111

Post by neutronicus »

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 think the main strength of the AI is just that its schedule is not a constraint.

Anyone can get a decision now-ish, without filtering through tiers of middle management.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#112

Post by afavour »

pdpi wrote: post #63
afavour wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think you’re going to need to elaborate on that

AI can’t replace genuine 1:1 human interaction. We’re social animals, and a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human.

But how much of a CEO’s job requires 1:1 human interaction? If I as a software developer am to be told I can do fine without human meetings to discuss product requirements, why can’t CEOs?

If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings they’re going to be surprised how much laughter they get in return.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#113

Post by fragmede »

aqme28 wrote: post #107
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.

Is it just that the company collapsed? The third-rate version of him probably would have ended up in jail a-la SBF or Ms Holmes, with hopefully no one getting killed or maimed, or chemicals in a factory causing cancer across neighborhoods or poisoning wells or something.

There are things worse than losing your job.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#114

Post by hsuduebc2 »

piguin wrote: post #56
morelandjs wrote: post #40

Would love some kind of randomized A-B test where CEOs are replaced with AI and the outcome measured. Would not at all be surprised if it’s far better than the bottom quartile or more. More practically, I think you could give a board of directors access to an LLM that sees all levels of company operations and let them talk to that chatbot as a stand-in for the CEO on a 24/7 basis.

CEOs can definitely be "hacked" by scammers but I think the public will react differently when a large company puts a lot of control in the hands of AI and it is scammed with some kind of cognitive hack that people assume wouldn't work as well on expensive wetware.

I'm kinda curious how AI would cope with immoral or ammoral decisions and tactics used daily by competition and if itself would start to practice them.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#115

Post by giancarlostoro »

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 would like to replace a few CIOs or CTOs at some companies, software quality has been down the drain since before AI. It's just terrible. Stock market pricing driven development is a detriment on software quality.

I was never a "fanboy" of Jeff Bezos, but I do admire when people do or take the correct approach, I say that to preface that I admire that early on he would tell investors that he's only to be considered as a long term investment, which I wish the stock market had some way to protect these sorts of stocks from the whims of people who quickly crash the value of a company on speculation or other meaningless metrics when you're heavily investing in R&D and have one bad quarter, maybe two, but your third quarter will yield results, but oh no, you have to fire people to make the market happy, so your efforts are ruined.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#116

Post by bko »

mikert89 wrote: post #72
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…

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

Investors aren't dumb. What does Ivy gain in this trade by just raising a lot of money and running it poorly?

You think he can raise a huge round and just decide to pay himself $20m a year?

Capital is not a moat. There are entire industries (VC, PE, Banks, etc) that are looking to write checks. Nothing would make them happier than to give you money, under the condition that there is significant upside (more VC) or assets (PE, Banks) and you commit to doing the hard work for very little pay.

This is actually how the world works.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#117

Post by thelastgallon »

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…

> Proven talent comes with a massive price tag, but it's almost always worth it.

Tall guy with good hair, smooth talker, in the same socio-economic circles, buddies with the board/investors, social drinker for networking, knows a lot about costly hobbies and 'interesting' experiences (pilot license, restores classic cars, has exotic car collection, golf) .....

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#119

Post by nacozarina »

Augment, rather than replace, is a better positioning. An LLM-based CxO suite that 'shadows' the human CxO suite ensures traditional accountability mechanisms remain functional, while delivering improved transparency and independence of performance evaluation. The 'captured board' problem is a barrier to adoption, yet external insurance and banking stakeholders can provide a range of incentives that will compel adoption.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#120

Post by afavour »

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 think there are parallels here to software development.

When starting a brand new project it’s better to have a lot of human involvement to make sure the AI is creating a foundation that actually matches requirements, both spoken and unspoken. But once the project reaches maturity it’s more realistic to imagine an AI working on top of that concrete layer.

So goes management. Bootstrapping a new company? Needs human involvement. A company just ticking along? I’m less convinced. Or to be more specific, as a developer who is told my work is obsolete by CEOs, I’m interested to know why they don’t apply the same logic inwards.

Post reply on HN