Rendered at 21:08:19 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ChrisMarshallNY 12 minutes ago [-]
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 is fun. Delivering them is painful. Raising them, is a lifetime of work.
In my experience, the same type of thing applies to products that we ship (and charge money for).
pknomad 6 minutes ago [-]
I like this analogy; raising children well like delivering products well pays dividends. They’re less likely to cause problems and if they do, they tend to be smaller in scope.
aplomb1026 7 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
everdrive 52 minutes ago [-]
There are a lot of bad CEOs, though. It's a lot like a politician -- it's quite difficult to become a CEO, and the skills to make it to that position don't always intersect nicely with the skills necessary to actually do the job well.
willio58 27 minutes ago [-]
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 rhetorical executives want to ruin the company, they’re just incompetent and therefore make terrible decisions constantly.
Henchman21 26 minutes ago [-]
You’re making the case for worker-owned cooperatives. Love it — we need more of them!
nickpinkston 14 minutes ago [-]
I'm very sympathetic to cooperatives, have traveled/know the Mondragon people (largest coop federation), etc.
However, I think there's a reason why coops seem to succeed at smaller scales, but there are essentially no large innovative coops.
There are a few large boring coops, and some small innovative ones, but seemingly something is making the CEO/investor board model the one large innovative companies are all using.
I suspect that it's both (1) access to capital is far harder for coops, and (2) that workplace democracy and hardcore mission focus aren't fully compatible. That is, "you cannot serve two masters" without losing focus on one of them.
oytis 9 minutes ago [-]
In software I can imagine a worker-owned consultancy, but not a product company. It would imply staying in one place working on one product for your whole life, which doesn't sound inspiring
dragonwriter 32 seconds ago [-]
A company need not be a single product, and working in a worker-owned cooperative need not be a lifetime commitment to a single firm (though cooperatives ideally will have less turnover than firms owned by capital separated from labor.)
nemomarx 16 minutes ago [-]
The problem is that knowing the right people to get investment does seem to have utility coops struggle to get, I think? maybe CEOs are basically like producers on movies who are just there to network for you.
zeroonetwothree 16 minutes ago [-]
Don’t you still need someone to make high level decisions?
nathan_compton 12 minutes ago [-]
Worker owned cooperatives have a variety of ways of doing this. Voting directly, electing people, etc. The main difference is that the cooperative typically doesn't buy the myth that the person making the high level decision needs to be paid 1000x the workers.
AnimalMuppet 4 minutes ago [-]
Maybe, but not necessarily for this reason. Even in a worker-owned coop, someone sets the overall direction. And how is that person going to be selected? It's still going to be largely politics.
chopete3 8 minutes ago [-]
>> Yes, the tools are powerful, but a CEO who thinks they replace the work of employees is simply a bad CEO.
This is a broad generalization of employees. There will be some "routine tasks" that can be done by AI, now that is a lot more powerful.
There won't be as many employees needed for routine work - for example L1 and L2 support work. For example, many companies had ML engineers building models for various models. Companies can get that off the shelf from AI companies. They don't need a big team of model builders now.
ungreased0675 2 hours ago [-]
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?
JTbane 1 hours ago [-]
You don't need custom built anything, ChatGPT could generate corporate initiatives and PR statements all day and no one would notice.
ottoflux 1 hours ago [-]
100% been saying this for a while now. the main thing AI will be able to replace is a C suite.
pydry 13 minutes ago [-]
it's kind of like saying like you could replace a king with an AI. the position is a relationship to power more than it is a function with a productive output.
a bad king and a bad CEO could be replaced with a spinning top with no loss in productivity (and maybe some gain).
hoppp 52 minutes ago [-]
I am building a project now and then will create an AI to manage it and be the CEO.
The code is human + AI, the management is only AI
grim_io 1 hours ago [-]
You can get a lot of tokens for a CEO. I'd say it's worth a try.
vineyardmike 29 minutes ago [-]
While I agree that AIs would do a good job…
Would you rather take instructions from a ruthless robot or ruthless flesh sack?
yoyohello13 19 minutes ago [-]
Weirdly enough, I'd take the robot. At least we can pretend the robot doesn't know any better. The human is actively choosing to be a dick and profiting off it.
vitally3643 19 minutes ago [-]
The flesh sack is choosing to be an insufferable twat, and the robot either doesn't have any choice or has a decent statistical justification for what it does.
Terr_ 59 minutes ago [-]
Robotics aren't there yet, it needs to go on golf playdates with investors and board members.
phyzix5761 50 minutes ago [-]
Who takes responsibility when the AI does something unethical or illegal? Do we put the computer in jail? Or do we just look the other way like we do with human CEOs?
Nuzzerino 20 minutes ago [-]
I think Grok on x.com is a reasonable case study. There’s the stuff we heard about and then there’s a separate category of things that weren’t newsworthy, and only the newsworthy things prompted changes to be made.
stvltvs 43 minutes ago [-]
It sounds like you already know the answer.
watwut 11 minutes ago [-]
To be fair here, CEO dont take responsibility and dont go to jail. In rare case they do, they will be pardoned.
rrauenza 49 minutes ago [-]
Remember the printer in Office Space?
surgical_fire 26 minutes ago [-]
lol CEOs in jail.
noncoml 25 seconds ago [-]
It's our fault, but stupidly naming everything AI.
A* search -> AI
Backtracking -> AI
Neural Networks -> AI
Fuzzy Logic -> AI
Genetic Algorithm -> AI
Deep Learning -> AI
Generative "AI" -> AI
Similar to Tesla naming it's driver assistant "auto-pilot" in 2015 and your average Joe thought he would be able to sleep while the car would drive him to work.
The CEO just hear AI and think of AGI. They expect Skynet.
matheusmoreira 6 minutes ago [-]
Why can't we get AI models that replace these CEOs? I bet they're pretty good at running a company.
seydor 52 minutes ago [-]
What about employees who think AI replaces their CEO
Fordec 49 minutes ago [-]
Upper management material written all over them.
saadn92 37 minutes ago [-]
It’s hilarious to me that when you stop investing in juniors and seniors who use your AIs retire, what are they going to do then?
Waterluvian 13 minutes ago [-]
Get your state governor to go on tv and ask for people who know how to program Cobalt.
glitchc 32 minutes ago [-]
Who wants to be CEO for that long? The company will be sold off to a larger conglomerate long before that happens.
noncoml 7 minutes ago [-]
The CEOs that think AI replaces their employees are the same that at the same time don't want to pay the AI costs.
ChrisArchitect 1 hours ago [-]
Previously:
Tech CEOs are apparently suffering from AI psychosis
The primary product of AI is labor displacement and consequently wage supression. This is what OpenAI and Anthropic are really selling. It didn't start with AI but AI is accelerating it.
This is what layoffs have been about since the pandemic. People in fear of losing their jobs do extra unpaid work and aren't asking for raises. The theoretical potential of AI gives companies the excuse to fire more people. The investment itself is directly used as a reason of why they need to cut back on labor.
Any sufficiently sized business can only feed the insatiable hunger for ever-increasing profits ultimately by cutting costs and raising prices. And what do we have now? High inflation and a decline in real wages. CEOs are just following this playbook.
And the result is that society is bouldering towards collapse. We're seeing the first hints of this with the youth unemployment crisis [1][2][3].
Also, who is going to buy anything when nobody has any money?
> Also, who is going to buy anything when nobody has any money?
This assumes that a mass consumer economy is necessary, when it isn't. Mass consumption is relatively new, for most of history economies functioned with just a small consuming elite and large underclass that consumed very little. We are already approaching that again in the states given that the top 10% of earners are already responsible for nearly half of all consumer spending.
There's a floor even in a mostly automated economy where some services are resistant to automation simply because the human element is the product. Luxury hospitality, personal care, etc. That billionaire is going to want a human masseuse, not a robot.
A highly automated economy could stabilize like this with a small elite population consuming luxury goods & services, served by a low-wage economic underclass human workforce.
Its certainly not a pleasant society, but its also not unsustainable given enough oppression or pacification (bread and circuses anyone?)
misano 1 hours ago [-]
A common misconception about AI is that it is intended to fully replace humans, which is incorrect. The purpose of AI is to reduce the need for human labor, and it has already been doing so. For example—though this is not an exact figure—a task that previously required 15 people might now only need 10. In no instance has the human element been completely replaced; rather, the reliance on manual labor has simply been reduced.
nitwit005 51 minutes ago [-]
It's not exactly a misconception, when companies are pitching AI as a full and complete replacement for human employees. People are just reading the billboards on the side of the road.
armada651 39 minutes ago [-]
I always found advertisements for AI to be so strange, why would you advertise your AI to the public as a danger for humanity that will also put everyone out of work? Such advertising would only appeal to sociopaths, but of course that's because it's intended to appeal to CEOs.
pavel_lishin 1 hours ago [-]
> though this is not an exact figure
You mean, this is an entirely made-up figure.
sbarre 56 minutes ago [-]
So what if it is? The example still stands.
A "unit of work" that required X people to complete in Y time can now be done by X/Z people in Y time, where Z is whatever efficiency you are able to get out of applying AI tooling to your business.
For some companies, Z might be less than 1 though. ;-)
So you still need skilled people, just not the same amount as before, because you have different tools available to you.
This has happened before with other advancements in industrial/technological automation. It's not a new concept.
iLoveOncall 43 minutes ago [-]
That supposes that AI has a positive impact to efficiency. So far I see the exact contrary, at least for software engineering.
yCombLinks 40 minutes ago [-]
That sounds like 5 humans got replaced by AI. I don't think most people worry about whether all humans will be replaced, simply whether or not they will be replaced, or people they care about.
trio8453 29 minutes ago [-]
Which is very short sighted. You or anyone close to you might not be replaced but it should be clear that you don't want to live in a society with 20% unemployment.
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 is fun. Delivering them is painful. Raising them, is a lifetime of work.
In my experience, the same type of thing applies to products that we ship (and charge money for).
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 rhetorical executives want to ruin the company, they’re just incompetent and therefore make terrible decisions constantly.
However, I think there's a reason why coops seem to succeed at smaller scales, but there are essentially no large innovative coops.
There are a few large boring coops, and some small innovative ones, but seemingly something is making the CEO/investor board model the one large innovative companies are all using.
I suspect that it's both (1) access to capital is far harder for coops, and (2) that workplace democracy and hardcore mission focus aren't fully compatible. That is, "you cannot serve two masters" without losing focus on one of them.
This is a broad generalization of employees. There will be some "routine tasks" that can be done by AI, now that is a lot more powerful.
There won't be as many employees needed for routine work - for example L1 and L2 support work. For example, many companies had ML engineers building models for various models. Companies can get that off the shelf from AI companies. They don't need a big team of model builders now.
a bad king and a bad CEO could be replaced with a spinning top with no loss in productivity (and maybe some gain).
The code is human + AI, the management is only AI
Would you rather take instructions from a ruthless robot or ruthless flesh sack?
A* search -> AI
Backtracking -> AI
Neural Networks -> AI
Fuzzy Logic -> AI
Genetic Algorithm -> AI
Deep Learning -> AI
Generative "AI" -> AI
Similar to Tesla naming it's driver assistant "auto-pilot" in 2015 and your average Joe thought he would be able to sleep while the car would drive him to work.
The CEO just hear AI and think of AGI. They expect Skynet.
Tech CEOs are apparently suffering from AI psychosis
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295679
I believe there are entire companies right now under AI psychosis
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48153379
This is what layoffs have been about since the pandemic. People in fear of losing their jobs do extra unpaid work and aren't asking for raises. The theoretical potential of AI gives companies the excuse to fire more people. The investment itself is directly used as a reason of why they need to cut back on labor.
Any sufficiently sized business can only feed the insatiable hunger for ever-increasing profits ultimately by cutting costs and raising prices. And what do we have now? High inflation and a decline in real wages. CEOs are just following this playbook.
And the result is that society is bouldering towards collapse. We're seeing the first hints of this with the youth unemployment crisis [1][2][3].
Also, who is going to buy anything when nobody has any money?
[1]: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americas-10-million...
[2]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/twelve-ways-to-fix-the-yo...
[3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy026x9jpd0o
This assumes that a mass consumer economy is necessary, when it isn't. Mass consumption is relatively new, for most of history economies functioned with just a small consuming elite and large underclass that consumed very little. We are already approaching that again in the states given that the top 10% of earners are already responsible for nearly half of all consumer spending.
There's a floor even in a mostly automated economy where some services are resistant to automation simply because the human element is the product. Luxury hospitality, personal care, etc. That billionaire is going to want a human masseuse, not a robot.
A highly automated economy could stabilize like this with a small elite population consuming luxury goods & services, served by a low-wage economic underclass human workforce.
Its certainly not a pleasant society, but its also not unsustainable given enough oppression or pacification (bread and circuses anyone?)
You mean, this is an entirely made-up figure.
A "unit of work" that required X people to complete in Y time can now be done by X/Z people in Y time, where Z is whatever efficiency you are able to get out of applying AI tooling to your business.
For some companies, Z might be less than 1 though. ;-)
So you still need skilled people, just not the same amount as before, because you have different tools available to you.
This has happened before with other advancements in industrial/technological automation. It's not a new concept.