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

271–280 of 395 posts

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#271

Post by gmadsen »

tonic_note wrote: post #204

Good satire. I find the "RTO is because of RE valuations" to be the most bizarre thing about the post pandemic work discourse. Office leases are a rounding error to large employers. They are not coercing employees back to the office because their worried about the value of a single portfolio asset falling (assuming they even own it). They are doing it because it's about power. Middle managers do not trust their staff…

Is your opinion that groups of 1000+ naturally align and deliver business value lock step with company needs? Is coordination not needed? Is leadership not needed?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#272

Post by darth_avocado »

bob1029 wrote: post #234

I have learned that the purpose of a CEO in many (most?) companies is not to actually run the company. Their purpose is to be the human delegate that represents the corporate entity. They are empowered to act on behalf of the entire organization. This is important because a corporation of many individuals generally cannot act as one. You can sometimes get close with really, really good teamwork, but that's still not…

So when the corporations do something illegal why doesn’t this conduit go to jail or pay out of pocket for misconduct? Or is the said conduit only in play for all the convenient aspects of the job like firing people while taking millions in bonuses?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#273

Post by Lord-Jobo »

gmadsen wrote: post #271
tonic_note wrote: post #204

Good satire. I find the "RTO is because of RE valuations" to be the most bizarre thing about the post pandemic work discourse. Office leases are a rounding error to large employers. They are not coercing employees back to the office because their worried about the value of a single portfolio asset falling (assuming they even own it). They are doing it because it's about power. Middle managers do not trust their staff…

Is your opinion that groups of 1000+ naturally align and deliver business value lock step with company needs? Is coordination not needed? Is leadership not needed?

Why does coordination and leadership require my boss to be 15 feet from me, locked in his office 95% of the day, instead of tethered much the same through Teams?

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#274

Post by afavour »

fidotron wrote: post #81
pdpi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human. If this were so obviously true there wouldn't be nearly so much concern about people having relationships with AIs.

No, that’s why there is a concern. They’re replacing human relationships with things that superficially look like human relationships but have no depth.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#275

Post by LPisGood »

hibikir wrote: post #78
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…

But a lot of "proven" talent with a huge price tag is also no good, really achieved what they did elsewhere due to sheer luck/help from a product that couldn't go wrong, and will drag you into a hole with their comp. I have seen this over and over again: Big pedigree, top of the line personality, zero results. Everyone thinks they are hiring the star, not the fraudster, or just the lucky one. That's how we end up wit…

I feel like we should consider the opposite as well. What if you actually hire someone who is great but they achieve zero results because of sheet bad luck and “help” from a product team that couldn’t go right.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#276

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

kibwen wrote: post #110
bluGill wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

Warren Buffet has always said that he likes to invest in businesses that are so great that even an idiot can run them (because often an idiot will be running them).

Any company that is thrashing around, constantly changing priorities, executive turnover, lots of layoffs is obviously being poorly run, yet this is typically exactly what happens when a new CEO is bought in to fix whatever was ailing before: the almost inevitable new-CEO plan: fire executives, bring in past cronies, have a few layoffs (because he's a tough guy, making those tough decisions), and change company priorities. Rinse and repeat - in a few years there'll be a new CEO coming in and doing the same again.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#277

Post by fidotron »

afavour wrote: post #274
fidotron wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human. If this were so obviously true there wouldn't be nearly so much concern about people having relationships with AIs.

No, that’s why there is a concern. They’re replacing human relationships with things that superficially look like human relationships but have no depth.

No, that's other people being concerned, it's not the people in the relationships that are concerned.

The position was "a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human" and quite clearly to some people it can, so the statement is false.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#278

Post by mathattack »

bob1029 wrote: post #234

I have learned that the purpose of a CEO in many (most?) companies is not to actually run the company. Their purpose is to be the human delegate that represents the corporate entity. They are empowered to act on behalf of the entire organization. This is important because a corporation of many individuals generally cannot act as one. You can sometimes get close with really, really good teamwork, but that's still not…

Also a single person for the board to hold accountable. In essence the individual that represents the company to outside groups.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Other working cultures have adopted committees as the top. Is is the dominant form in US shareholder capitalism.

The original post is surely satire.

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#279

Post by LearnYouALisp »

darth_avocado wrote: post #272
bob1029 wrote: post #234

I have learned that the purpose of a CEO in many (most?) companies is not to actually run the company. Their purpose is to be the human delegate that represents the corporate entity. They are empowered to act on behalf of the entire organization. This is important because a corporation of many individuals generally cannot act as one. You can sometimes get close with really, really good teamwork, but that's still not…

So when the corporations do something illegal why doesn’t this conduit go to jail or pay out of pocket for misconduct? Or is the said conduit only in play for all the convenient aspects of the job like firing people while taking millions in bonuses?

Aka all the benefits, none of the negs

why if YOU profit off a single copyright violation, it could be $250,000 and up to five years, but if you do it against millions of artists, and have a corporation (and money), it's just a few thousand per and you walk and keep doing business (never mind pretending the rest of it is 'fair use', when no human work is being done to produce the Fourier-combined ploduct and nothing new is added).

Re: OverpAId – Fire your CEO. Hire the future

#280

Post by LearnYouALisp »

andrewmutz wrote: post #150
hibikir wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a lot of "proven" talent with a huge price tag is also no good, really achieved what they did elsewhere due to sheer luck/help from a product that couldn't go wrong, and will drag you into a hole with their comp. I have seen this over and over again: Big pedigree, top of the line personality, zero results. Everyone thinks they are hiring the star, not the fraudster, or just the lucky one. That's how we end up wit…

From my experience, "Big pedigree, top of the line personality, zero results" isn't about hiring a CEO, it's about hiring in general. Hiring is really hard and its relatively common for someone to look good on paper and do really well in interviews and completely bomb on the job. The difference with hiring a CEO is that the blast radius is much larger for that role

Maybe we should have LLMs (and ML for results) start hiring at the top level to dogfood some reality back into the class
Post reply on HN