4 ms·

I'm saddened to tell you fellow hackers here that the real world will be more like: "Replace your knowledge worker with an LLM" ordered by your CEO.

by siva7 2y ago

tbrake 2y ago
I feel most bad for the other frogs in roles whose pots haven't even been put on the AI stovetop yet. I have general feeling they feel they're safe. Looking at you specifically, Project/Program managers with little output other than attending meetings and asking for status updates and futzing with JIRA to get reports. The dev frogs might not even be finished boiling before you notice your steam.
hibikir 2y ago
This makes perfect sense when you consider who is making the decisions. If you are trying to, say, replace an ad-buying team with an AI that supposedly does the job better, your goal has to be to sell it at a high enough level that the political pressure of having the old department employed doesn't tank everything regardless of results. One can try to sell to a CEO than an IT department is a cost center, and they can bring in the same results for less. But to replace a CEO you need to sell to the board, and the board is typically full of CEOs. Even a far superior CEO that costs $1 a day is a hard sell when the CEO is your buddy, and you aren't going to be making a mint as a board member for getting rid of said buddy.
- woah 2y ago
  If far superior AI CEOs existed then only one board would need to replace their CEO with AI. The company would then dominate the marketplace because of the far superior decisions being made, and the rest would be forced to follow. If AI CEOs were slightly inferior to human CEOs, but cost $1 per year, it still wouldn't be worth replacing an expensive human CEO, unless that CEO's compensation was worth more than a few percent of revenue (it never is). I wouldn't want to invest my money in a company which was making worse decisions to try to save money on the CEO, when the money paid to the CEO is going to have very little effect on my return on investment. That sounds like a good way to for my investment to underperform. The only winner in that scenario is online forum posters who want to feel jealous of the abstract concept of a "CEO".
jollyllama 2y ago
Yes, due to the power of the relative positions, but I'd like to point out >Replace Your CEO with an LLM Lossless, as they're already constrained so tightly in their functions by regulations. >Replace your knowledge worker with an LLM Lossy, in many cases.

I'm saddened to tell you fellow hackers here that the real world will be more like: "Replace your knowledge worker with an LLM" ordered by your CEO.

by siva7 2y ago

I'm saddened to tell you fellow hackers here that the real world will be more like: "Replace your knowledge worker with an LLM" ordered by your CEO.

tbrake 2y ago

I feel most bad for the other frogs in roles whose pots haven't even been put on the AI stovetop yet. I have general feeling they feel they're safe. Looking at you specifically, Project/Program managers with little output other than attending meetings and asking for status updates and futzing with JIRA to get reports. The dev frogs might not even be finished boiling before you notice your steam.

hibikir 2y ago

This makes perfect sense when you consider who is making the decisions. If you are trying to, say, replace an ad-buying team with an AI that supposedly does the job better, your goal has to be to sell it at a high enough level that the political pressure of having the old department employed doesn't tank everything regardless of results. One can try to sell to a CEO than an IT department is a cost center, and they can bring in the same results for less. But to replace a CEO you need to sell to the board, and the board is typically full of CEOs. Even a far superior CEO that costs $1 a day is a hard sell when the CEO is your buddy, and you aren't going to be making a mint as a board member for getting rid of said buddy.

woah 2y ago
If far superior AI CEOs existed then only one board would need to replace their CEO with AI. The company would then dominate the marketplace because of the far superior decisions being made, and the rest would be forced to follow. If AI CEOs were slightly inferior to human CEOs, but cost $1 per year, it still wouldn't be worth replacing an expensive human CEO, unless that CEO's compensation was worth more than a few percent of revenue (it never is). I wouldn't want to invest my money in a company which was making worse decisions to try to save money on the CEO, when the money paid to the CEO is going to have very little effect on my return on investment. That sounds like a good way to for my investment to underperform. The only winner in that scenario is online forum posters who want to feel jealous of the abstract concept of a "CEO".

jollyllama 2y ago

Yes, due to the power of the relative positions, but I'd like to point out >Replace Your CEO with an LLM Lossless, as they're already constrained so tightly in their functions by regulations. >Replace your knowledge worker with an LLM Lossy, in many cases.