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

CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 337 posts

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#181

Post by jimbokun »

munk-a wrote: post #133
jimbokun wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the concrete benefits? Do they tend to make greater revenue or profits? Pay higher wages and offer greater benefits to employees?

Coops tend to have better aligned incentives for employees on every step of the ladder. They'll tend to be more conservative about R&D but ensure that money that's being spent is being productive for the continuing health of the company since instead of that budget being "corporate's money pile" it's your potential profit share. I think there's also a tendency towards longer tenure and higher value employees due to t…

Any data to support those claims?

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#183

Post by claysmithr »

californical wrote: post #156
hintymad wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's so much work in delivering products that will carry your brand, and then must be supported. People think otherwise with AI partly because Anthropic kept telling us that they didn't have to write code or review code any more for most of their work. Their agent swarms just comb through their github, slack and wikis to figure out what to do next, and another swarm of agents just review, test, merge, deploy, A/…

> the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) Holy crap that is dark. I like learning about ML for fun, and now I have to assume that their model is intentionally misinforming me to sabotage my learning? It is absolutely bananas that somebody decided that was ok behavior.

time to support open source and local models

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#184

Post by fuzzfactor »

strangattractor wrote: post #157
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #39

Reminds me of the old joke "90% of the code is 90% of the work. The last 10% of the code is the other 90% of the work." I have spent almost my entire adult life (since 1986) shipping products. One of the very first things that I learned, was that "shipping" > "designing". There's so much work in delivering products that will carry your brand, and then must be supported. I liken it to having children. Conceiving them…

%80 of CEOs are Meh. %10 of the CEOs add value to the company. %10 of the CEOs are actually detrimental. The %80 will always try and do what they think the top %10 CEOs do because of FOMO. The bottom %10 will do it because they know their days are numbered and hope that it might put them in the %80 keeping their jobs. A good LLM could probably replace most and not do any worse. Good CEOs don't see their employees as…

Those percent estimates look about right :0

Good CEO's make such good money on their employees that everybody gets raises and bonuses, the company grows responsibly, and the stock is a good investment.

Too bad it's out of reach for so many executives.

If that's too challenging, I understand, but if they had real confidence as a business operator I don't see why so many would be kicking out anybody over AI when they could at least continue to make the same money off the same people going forward. OTOH in cases where AI is almost ideally helpful it should be no surprise if hiring is slowed, and doing the accounting it could very well add up about the same either way. But one way clearly indicates the limited vision of a lesser leader, why settle for that?

Two of the most macro giveaway characteristics are emotionalism and superstition.

Not just for CEO's and other executives, but anyone in a leadership position or with decision-making tasks to perform.

One of the legendary combinations is when superstition is used in place of technology, and emotional reactions completely prevail instead of genuine business acumen.

It's a pretty good estimate that almost every CEO who thinks it would be good if AI replaced their employees, that these CEO's fit squarely in the superstitious camp.

I would say that's just one growing subset of a much larger smorgasbord of superstitions to choose from, and some big-shots are bound to indulge a whole lot more than others :\

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#185

Post by claysmithr »

jimbokun wrote: post #99
willio58 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEOs do get there with lots of politics in almost all cases. It’s all about who’s ass you kiss and who’s ass you don’t and if you’re lucky with timing things might just fall into place. I think it’s exceedingly rare that a CEO is actually competent at their job. In most cases it’s the labor class propping the company up, and in some cases the workers are doing so against the wishes of the CEO. Not that executives wan…

Knowing which ass to kiss at the right time is an important skill not everyone has.

not a skill i'm interested in, lol..

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#186

Post by manicennui »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #2

A custom-built AI would be pretty good at replacing a CEO. Think of all the things a company could do if they reduced overhead by that much?

It's pretty disappointing that people on this site of all places have no idea what CEOs do. Many of them are certainly overpaid, and like any other profession, many are not good at their jobs, but they aren't sitting around drafting memos and coming up with deciding who to fire all day.

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#187

Post by noisy_boy »

manoDev wrote: post #148
Hoasi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, raising money takes a certain skill, that few people possess; and in many cases, it’s essential for a startup to even exist.

> To be fair, raising money takes connections, that few people possess; and in many cases, it’s essential for a startup to even exist. FTFY

>> To be fair, building connections takes skill, that few people possess; and in many cases, it’s essential for a startup to even exist.

FTFY

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#188

Post by waterTanuki »

> I will say that I hate the term “AI psychosis” because the term is extremely misleading, and many psychologists and psychiatrists have complained that it is inaccurate and may cause more problems itself. But the general sense that CEOs are going overboard with AI is definitely happening.

It's getting exhausting how x field of experts constantly bemoan the coining of one term or another, rather than provide a decent alternative. It's not very goal-oriented thinking. Just empty complaining.

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#189

Post by dartharva »

jimbokun wrote: post #99
willio58 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEOs do get there with lots of politics in almost all cases. It’s all about who’s ass you kiss and who’s ass you don’t and if you’re lucky with timing things might just fall into place. I think it’s exceedingly rare that a CEO is actually competent at their job. In most cases it’s the labor class propping the company up, and in some cases the workers are doing so against the wishes of the CEO. Not that executives wan…

Knowing which ass to kiss at the right time is an important skill not everyone has.

I wonder if business schools could ever start actually teaching this skill. So far they just largely operate as scams, held up purely by prestige and network value

Re: CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

#190

Post by techblueberry »

hintymad wrote: post #109
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #39

Reminds me of the old joke "90% of the code is 90% of the work. The last 10% of the code is the other 90% of the work." I have spent almost my entire adult life (since 1986) shipping products. One of the very first things that I learned, was that "shipping" > "designing". There's so much work in delivering products that will carry your brand, and then must be supported. I liken it to having children. Conceiving them…

> There's so much work in delivering products that will carry your brand, and then must be supported. People think otherwise with AI partly because Anthropic kept telling us that they didn't have to write code or review code any more for most of their work. Their agent swarms just comb through their github, slack and wikis to figure out what to do next, and another swarm of agents just review, test, merge, deploy, A/…

I’ve been wondering if “you’re not google” when learning about googles software dev process applies to Anthropic. Anthropic is a company that A. Has cheap unlimited access to its models and B. Is probably largely insulated from the types of tradeoffs that the rest of industry has had to observe in the post-ZIRP era.

Like did they break through the productivity seal? Or are they willing to spend that much more on it since they see their failure as a like existential threat to humanity. I doubt it our boss sees your software the same way.

Post reply on HN