zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
For a change, maybe it'd be a good idea to get a CEO who at least has faint idea about how ML works on a technical level? Would you like a company that builds rockets to be led by some salesman who doesn't understand basic Physics? Probably not. You don't need to be Hinton or Schmidhuber, but come on, who thinks it's a good idea to have these typical "Silicon Valley VC CEOs" lead an AI company?

>>lovepa+E9
The trick is that execs do have unusually good insight into how their tech works, because they can ask their reports to explain it.

Btw, I think it's funny how much credit Hinton gets for AI. His contribution is pretty much just keeping some grad students on the problem.

>>astran+Od
I think there's an important difference between not understanding and not doing the work yourself because you are in a managerial/advisor position. If you give Hinton a recent paper on LLM RLHF he will understand the nuances in it, he just delegates the actual work. If you give Emmett Shear or whoever such a thing, they almost certainly don't. For a deep tech company focused on research (not some consumer SaaS thing) I don't think you can be a good CEO if you don't even have an understanding of what you are building.