3 ms·

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 mor

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.
spookie 3y ago
Execs are as subjugated by the times as the rest of us are, they surely pass part of that burden, but only part. They are still affected all the same. It's great to have a scapegoat for all manner of issues as AI has been categorised as, though!
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> 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 If it’s possible. Hertz buying every Tesla didn’t make the EV transition happen quicker.
- orev 3y ago
  Executives control their employees (to whatever degree they can). Your Hertz example would be about controlling customers (which every executive fantasizes about but can’t actually do).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Executives control their employees (to whatever degree they can) Sure. But if they lay off their workforce and AI doesn't deliver, no amount of executive cajoling will make it do what it can't do. In the same way that an executive who refuses to deploy AI will be outcompeted by those who do (if it works), the one who overenthusiastically deploys it will be outcompeted by those who didn't.
    - orev 3y ago
      The context of my comment is that JumpCrisscross is confusing the ability of executives to be able to control their employees vs being able to control their customers. The Hertz example is incorrect because it’s related to customers, when the AI discussion is about employees. In making such a mistake, this subthread is no longer about AI vs employees, it’s about avoiding red herrings in the discussion.

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.

spookie 3y ago

Execs are as subjugated by the times as the rest of us are, they surely pass part of that burden, but only part. They are still affected all the same. It's great to have a scapegoat for all manner of issues as AI has been categorised as, though!

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> 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 If it’s possible. Hertz buying every Tesla didn’t make the EV transition happen quicker.

orev 3y ago
Executives control their employees (to whatever degree they can). Your Hertz example would be about controlling customers (which every executive fantasizes about but can’t actually do).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Executives control their employees (to whatever degree they can) Sure. But if they lay off their workforce and AI doesn't deliver, no amount of executive cajoling will make it do what it can't do. In the same way that an executive who refuses to deploy AI will be outcompeted by those who do (if it works), the one who overenthusiastically deploys it will be outcompeted by those who didn't.
  - orev 3y ago
    The context of my comment is that JumpCrisscross is confusing the ability of executives to be able to control their employees vs being able to control their customers. The Hertz example is incorrect because it’s related to customers, when the AI discussion is about employees. In making such a mistake, this subthread is no longer about AI vs employees, it’s about avoiding red herrings in the discussion.