zlacker

It's almost as if CEOs aren't really that smart or creative, got to their position through mostly politics, and look externally for clues about what to do.

>>ryandr+(OP)
CEOs like to brag about how AI is going to replace skilled workers. Yet, it should be obvious to anyone having experience in LLMs that top executives are the jobs that are most likely replaceable by AI.

Just keep smooth talking everyone into cost reductions and make arbitrary decisions to make it feel like you're actually in charge.

>>thbb12+81
Wouldn't that be funny to see an AI bot replace the CEO of something like Boeing, and then see the company turn around in positive moves? Feed an LLM all of the business data that a CEO would have and then ask it to make the same decisions the CEO would be expected to make. Since layoffs would be the trend online for LLMs to train on, would they come up with slop that looks like they too follow the trends? If companies are willing to replace dev with AI, why are boards not looking at all of the C-suite offices with the same mindset?

>>ryandr+(OP)
same with directors. BODs are incestuous, inbred.

The letter seemed contradictory: be a factory, but innovate on AI. Is AI actually smart? Human brains use the power of a dim incandescent light bulb, why does AI require so much power, that the processing chips overheat?

Sure, selected tasks can be done orders of magnitude faster, but do we, for example, really need that kind of output, like pi to a trillion digits? Or AI controlling stock market trading? How much liquidity is necessary for traders other than huge funds?

>>dylan6+W1
Same with the Federal Reserve. Why not continuously adjust interest rates, instead of all of Wall Street agonizing over each decision made?

>>dylan6+W1
You can't put an LLM in charge of a company. You need an actual human to take legal responsib- oh, wait a second...

>>thbb12+81
> anyone having experience in LLMs that top executives are the jobs that are most likely replaceable by AI.

That’s not my assessment. Why do you say that?

>>DaveZa+W3
How would not adjusting vs always adjusting be any different? Is it not a made decision to leave it alone and not change it?

>>DaveZa+W3
It seems to me that a large percentage of jobs exist just to exist, and that they use their continued existence to justify their continued existence. I wonder how much the world would keep spinning if 90% of people were laid off. Maybe we'll find out if AI is adopted widely enough...

>>ryandr+(OP)
"Please, speak as you might to a young child or a Golden Retriever. It wasn't brains that got me here, I can assure you that."

>>ryandr+(OP)
I don't think this is entirely fair. One analogy I like is boat racing. In boat races if you follow someone you're almost always going to do just as well as them. Take a dfferent path and you could get lucky, but just as likley you're going to hit a bad current and throw the whole race. So you follow the crowd and wait for oppritunities to take the lead instead of rolling dices. I don't think they're nessesarily doing anything wrong just because they don't want to do something super aggresive.

>>DaveZa+W3
If data was reliable, instant, and comprehensive, this might work. Of course, under those circumstances socialism or communism would probably work out even better.

It is precisely because data comes out murkily, with a lag - and the effects of changes have a lag as well- that managing the Federal Reserve can't by reduced to a simple process. It is an art done by humans- one where 'general trust in the institution' is the single most important variable of the last 40 years.

>>DaveZa+W3
Because the agonizing is part of their job. That's called "animal spirits" / managing expectations. The expectation of future interest rates is nearly as important as what they actually are.

>>ryandr+(OP)
It took me a long time to learn this

>>andsoi+85
because ceo bad/dumb and eng good/smart

>>thbb12+81
Seems to me like a couple of if-then-else statements could do a better job than some executives.

>>thbb12+81
> Yet, it should be obvious to anyone having experience in LLMs that top executives are the jobs that are most likely replaceable by AI.

Yes given those are jobs where hallucination is a feature not a bug

>>ryandr+(OP)
Its merely a personality contest, a sociological phenomenon. Humans band around (and more easily listen to) individuals bearing certain personality traits. These traits have very little to do with actual problem solving, and finding the most ideal path forward for an organization. Alot of times they go hand and hand but I'd wager, from the CEOs ive personally met, there are alot of them with just the charismatic set.

>>andsoi+85
They make that claim because what CEOs write down could easily be written by a Markov Model, nevermind an LLM. If that was the primary value a CEO brought to the company they'd be right.

The most important thing a CEO brings is relationships. LLMs can't do that (yet).

Post script: there's still a chance that LLMs replace CEOs due to LLMs being easier for the board to influence/control.

>>dylan6+W1
CEOs don't have any data.

>>DaveZa+E3
It takes me an hour to write 100 lines of slop -- code or text. AI can do it in 1 or 2 minutes. That might have something to do power usage.

>>suppor+0b
He was being modest; he seemed shrewd.

>>DaveZa+W3
Interest rates work with different lags in different parts of the economy. The current hiking cycle basically only just has taken its full effect (think when people refinance debt and when they delay this.)

>>ryandr+(OP)
what would you do if you were the CEO of Intel?

>>fijiaa+Uz
> It takes me an hour to write 100 lines of slop

Skill issue. I can outpace your LLM if I get the same tolerances.

>>andsoi+85
because 95% of the time it's "follow the herd" BS + always defer to the lowest cost. the rest is schmoozing, making people feel comfortable, sounding confident, and working the soft skills.

chatGPT always sounds confident, and it's not hard for it to calculate the lowest possible option and take it.

>>DaveZa+W3
Wallstreet would be screwed by this. You can't take away the gambling aspect and big wins because then you are left with a pre-80s style market where dividends and steady income matter over 'line goes up next quarter'. The current market would HATE that.

>>_DeadF+3Z1
couldn't agree more.

Many economists point out that the Fed's policies serve the 1% above all.

Heck you can get a Nobel Prize based on your Fed chairmanship, then tank the economy.

One pundit observes that the Fed is an example of "burn the village to save the village" as (rarely) an underemployed firefighter-turned-arsonist will do. Extreme perspective for sure.

In the era of Big Data, can't real-time data and policy co-exist?

>>otabde+6c1
it helps to be able to type at 70wpm. My high school typing class in the 70s actually did wonders for my career as keyboards and screens took over. As far as processors go- that's a subject best discussed offline with a beer in hand.

>>ryandr+(OP)
That's what AI does. Makes power and politics have even more of a premium vs say learning, intelligence and hard work. Connections, wealth and power. It is almost ironic that our industry is inventing the thing that empowers the people that techies often find useless (as per the above comments) and dis-empowering themselves often shutting the door behind them.

Yes an AI will come up with more insight than many management people as many people state in this thread that a LLM can do their job. Its a mistake to assume that's what they are paid for however.