4 ms·

It's tempting to read this like tea leaves predicting our future, but to be honest, I don't think these execs know any more than we do. I think they're just spe

It's tempting to read this like tea leaves predicting our future, but to be honest, I don't think these execs know any more than we do. I think they're just speculating. They have the same technology available that we do. Maybe @sama has given a select few a technology preview. All of this to say: it's still too early to see how this shakes out. AGI changes the calculus completely, of course, but I'm not so sure various flavors of GPT alone will disrupt the job market.

deciplex 3y ago
The difference with execs saying it is they're in a position to convince themselves they're right and act to make it happen. And it doesn't help that the immediate effect (lower payroll, higher stock prices) will "prove" them right, even as the enshittification of our entire economy accelerates.
- foobarian 3y ago
  On the third hand look at the Hertz execs trying to be visionary and where that led them.
  - anon7725 3y ago
    Execs can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Also that they control politics, so as they apply AI liberally, resulting in oceans of untold (and plenty of told) deaths and horrifying injustices, you can rest assured that they will have no liability, even if they need to have legislation passed to avoid it. They're not predicting the future, they're announcing it. It's up to the population to get over themselves and deal with it.
futureshock 3y ago
Execs create the future, they don’t predict it. If an exec with all their huge command of resources wants to remake job roles around AI and find ways to get more efficiency out of each person, then they have a pretty good chance of making that happen to some degree. True there may be technical limits, but this tech has a lot of present day potential and it’s very plausible some work will be automated.
- chrz 3y ago
  Wow, really, execs create future?
  - crispyambulance 3y ago
    Sounds like some folks actually believe corporate mission statements!
  - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    They kind of do. If you work at a company where the CTO says "your performance bonus will be partially based on what a code analysis tool like SonarQube says about your code", then your future and the future of other similar people in your organization will be created following that path. They dictate which direction projects/milestones get prioritized + what fashion they get implemented in.
  - futureshock 3y ago
    Sure of course, in a totally apparent way. In one sense, each of us individually participates in creating the future and occasionally some special person changes the world significantly or advances the state of the art all on their own, a brilliant scientist or artist and so on. But most of the work creating the future is a team effort, not a solidarity one. You need many, many people all pulling in the same direction. And for all those people to coordinate, you need leaders to sell the vision, raise the money and pay the team. Sure there are other kinds of human organizing, but companies create a large share of innovation vs. governments and academia. Execs are the people most responsible for choosing what companies spend their resources on. And for practical example, Mark Zuckerberg was for whatever reason, interested in VR existing as an everyday consumer experience. He scooped up a promising team working on a prototype, then directed untold billions at pulling VR out of the research lab and into millions of homes. It’s not obvious that VR was worth the investment and still isn’t. Minus the decisions of Mark Zuckerberg, would any VR headsets from any company exist for consumers? Unknown, but I believe no technology is inevitable. Our choices matter and the choices of very rich and powerful people matter all the more.
josho 3y ago
I think the C-suite may have more exposure to the many roles in a company. As an example the help desk function is likely to be transformed. Loan processors (the people reading your basic loan application details), farther out the underwriters approving a loan and at what rate. These functions are easy targets for AI to transform. It’s a highly repeatable role with lots of historical data. All that’s missing is some software guardrails placed around the models.
ShamelessC 3y ago
Contrary to the sibling comments, executives at publicly traded companies have very little reason to speak honestly about this plenty of reasons to bolster the position of AI in their company. The narrative pushes the value of their shares and earns them a raise for fairly little effort. Don't know why you would ask these people instead of, say, researchers. Speaking personally and a bit more cynically, these execs likely have _no_ clue what they are talking about and care about little more than money and status.
MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> I think they're just speculating. Speculating with motivation (company profits) and "decision making" privileges means they will most likely attempt/be at the cutting edge of implementation (trying to cut whatever applicable jobs they can and replace with AI with good results)

deciplex 3y ago

The difference with execs saying it is they're in a position to convince themselves they're right and act to make it happen. And it doesn't help that the immediate effect (lower payroll, higher stock prices) will "prove" them right, even as the enshittification of our entire economy accelerates.

foobarian 3y ago
On the third hand look at the Hertz execs trying to be visionary and where that led them.
- anon7725 3y ago
  Execs can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent
pessimizer 3y ago
Also that they control politics, so as they apply AI liberally, resulting in oceans of untold (and plenty of told) deaths and horrifying injustices, you can rest assured that they will have no liability, even if they need to have legislation passed to avoid it. They're not predicting the future, they're announcing it. It's up to the population to get over themselves and deal with it.

futureshock 3y ago

Execs create the future, they don’t predict it. If an exec with all their huge command of resources wants to remake job roles around AI and find ways to get more efficiency out of each person, then they have a pretty good chance of making that happen to some degree. True there may be technical limits, but this tech has a lot of present day potential and it’s very plausible some work will be automated.

chrz 3y ago
Wow, really, execs create future?
- crispyambulance 3y ago
  Sounds like some folks actually believe corporate mission statements!
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  They kind of do. If you work at a company where the CTO says "your performance bonus will be partially based on what a code analysis tool like SonarQube says about your code", then your future and the future of other similar people in your organization will be created following that path. They dictate which direction projects/milestones get prioritized + what fashion they get implemented in.
- futureshock 3y ago
  Sure of course, in a totally apparent way. In one sense, each of us individually participates in creating the future and occasionally some special person changes the world significantly or advances the state of the art all on their own, a brilliant scientist or artist and so on. But most of the work creating the future is a team effort, not a solidarity one. You need many, many people all pulling in the same direction. And for all those people to coordinate, you need leaders to sell the vision, raise the money and pay the team. Sure there are other kinds of human organizing, but companies create a large share of innovation vs. governments and academia. Execs are the people most responsible for choosing what companies spend their resources on. And for practical example, Mark Zuckerberg was for whatever reason, interested in VR existing as an everyday consumer experience. He scooped up a promising team working on a prototype, then directed untold billions at pulling VR out of the research lab and into millions of homes. It’s not obvious that VR was worth the investment and still isn’t. Minus the decisions of Mark Zuckerberg, would any VR headsets from any company exist for consumers? Unknown, but I believe no technology is inevitable. Our choices matter and the choices of very rich and powerful people matter all the more.

josho 3y ago

I think the C-suite may have more exposure to the many roles in a company. As an example the help desk function is likely to be transformed. Loan processors (the people reading your basic loan application details), farther out the underwriters approving a loan and at what rate. These functions are easy targets for AI to transform. It’s a highly repeatable role with lots of historical data. All that’s missing is some software guardrails placed around the models.

ShamelessC 3y ago

Contrary to the sibling comments, executives at publicly traded companies have very little reason to speak honestly about this plenty of reasons to bolster the position of AI in their company. The narrative pushes the value of their shares and earns them a raise for fairly little effort. Don't know why you would ask these people instead of, say, researchers. Speaking personally and a bit more cynically, these execs likely have _no_ clue what they are talking about and care about little more than money and status.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago

> I think they're just speculating. Speculating with motivation (company profits) and "decision making" privileges means they will most likely attempt/be at the cutting edge of implementation (trying to cut whatever applicable jobs they can and replace with AI with good results)