Automate the CEOs • Hacker News Board

Re: Automate the CEOs

#31

Post by foldr » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:19 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #27

foldr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>just that once you're in the role for two days you realize that replacing that role entirely isn't going to happen. Journalists might very well say the same thing (when people who've never been journalists talk about replacing them with AI).

The kind of journalism that journalists want you to think they do - going out into war zones or directly interviewing people to find out new things of public interest - isn't replaceable by AI. The kind of journalism they actually do - hanging out on Twitter and repeating whatever goes trending there - is easily replaceable. They did this to themselves.

That is certainly the view of many people who aren't writers or journalists. We'll see if it plays out. Jobs do tend to appear simpler than they really are when looking in from the outside.

>They did this to themselves.

And who set this bad direction? The CEO. This hardly adds to the case for not replacing him with an AI.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#32

Post by andsoitis » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #29

ajsharp wrote: post #9

If CEOs were as replaceable and disconnected from the outcome of a business as the author suggests, boards would've started doing this long ago and CEO salaries would come down as a result (lots of people want to be CEOs, and by this author's logic, virtually anyone can do it). This is so disconnected from reality it reads like satire.

Would they? I understand that in many cases, CEOs are often selected by, and their remuneration awarded by, boards made up of incestuous groupings of people who rely on each other in the same way. Their incentive is to award big paydays to each other. Do you have any evidence that boards would not do this?

> I understand that in many cases, CEOs are often selected by, and their remuneration awarded by, boards made up of incestuous groupings of people who rely on each other in the same way.

Can you give one or two examples?

Re: Automate the CEOs

#33

Post by leashless » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

Please.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#34

Post by calvinmorrison » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:23 PM UTC

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…

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 development or whatever work you do in and out instead of on the day to day running of life.

I don't want a scrum master, I want a secretary.

As a manager, 90% of what I do as a manager is follow up with people, act as an escalation point for managing timelines, organizing who can do what, and none of this really is a skill related to my actual skillset.

Luckily I am able to commit to 20/hrs a week of development, but I could probably do 35 with a secretary - and use those last 5 hours to focus on strategy, direction, leadership stuff that's actually important.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#35

Post by systems_glitch » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:23 PM UTC

You know what will be the actual AI apocalypse? When (probably middle mgmt at first, and maybe some dumb CEOs) mgmt starts treating LLMs like the Magic Meatball and following the advice blindly.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#36

Post by candiddevmike » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:24 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #17

ajsharp wrote: post #9

If CEOs were as replaceable and disconnected from the outcome of a business as the author suggests, boards would've started doing this long ago and CEO salaries would come down as a result (lots of people want to be CEOs, and by this author's logic, virtually anyone can do it). This is so disconnected from reality it reads like satire.

They replace C-level people often and the relationship isn't what you imply. There's a structural power relationship in play. Monarchs play a fairly unimportant role these days but many countries still have them and compensate them handsomely. CEOs are structurally capitalist monarchs. Sometimes it's even a hereditary position. They even do the corporate equivalent of court and heraldry stuff. They're compensated not…

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

Re: Automate the CEOs

#37

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:25 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #32

EliRivers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they? I understand that in many cases, CEOs are often selected by, and their remuneration awarded by, boards made up of incestuous groupings of people who rely on each other in the same way. Their incentive is to award big paydays to each other. Do you have any evidence that boards would not do this?

> I understand that in many cases, CEOs are often selected by, and their remuneration awarded by, boards made up of incestuous groupings of people who rely on each other in the same way. Can you give one or two examples?

Take a look at the bios on https://ir.homedepot.com/corporate-governance/board-of-direc... for an example. They're all C-suite folks from other large corporations; Marriott, United Technologies, American Airlines, etc.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#38

Post by sf4lifer » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:25 PM UTC

Truly successful CEOs make decisions where there is no definitive data and end up being right. It's not clear to me AI's would be good at that. Most CEO's have a chief of staff, that's probably something AI could replace.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#39

Post by floydnoel » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:26 PM UTC

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…

those leaders come around so incredibly rarely, that movies get made about it!

Re: Automate the CEOs

#40

Post by xp84 » Thu, Jun 01, 2023, 1:26 PM UTC

candiddevmike wrote: post #36

kristopolous wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They replace C-level people often and the relationship isn't what you imply. There's a structural power relationship in play. Monarchs play a fairly unimportant role these days but many countries still have them and compensate them handsomely. CEOs are structurally capitalist monarchs. Sometimes it's even a hereditary position. They even do the corporate equivalent of court and heraldry stuff. They're compensated not…

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.