CEO: why not both?
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
774 points (98.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
32479 readers
240 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Shareholders: why not all three?
Hedge fund manager: hold my beer.
Humanity: yes, let's replace all of the above. 100% unemployment rate is the only way to go.
Honestly 100% unemployed becuase we have a good universal income system or something would be great. But sadly it looks like we're in a different timeline :(
*Several steps later*
Narrator: And that, folks, is how we got the Utopia we live in, by replacing all the work with AI, and letting people enjoy their lives
Haha. No. Nothing so hopeful. The rich people will get even richer and everyone that used to be working class and middle class die a slow death.
Now I wander what would happen if only rich people would survive and I'm sure somebody has already written an sf book about that
Yeah. That's (arguably) the background scenario to Asimov's book "The Naked Sun" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun
Edit: Ooh, Django already gave a cooler link to the same: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/10729278
Took me a while to track it down, but I think this is the book to which you were referring.
https://angryflower.com/348.html
I make no cleans about the stances of this artist; I just saw this strip years ago.
Robots sure are long overdue
Considering that C-suite executives are usually fantastically expensive, they'd be a logical position to automate (assuming AI worked like suits think it does). For some veeeery strange reason no board of directors has suggested replacing themselves with AIs
It’d be super easy to replace Sam Altman with a bot that spits out keywords known to increase OpenAI shares.
Waitaminute… Sam alt-man?
I know, right? It's like he's an incredibly shitty sci-fi villain.
CEO is the first role to go!
given that LLMs and gen AIs are great at talking bullshit and creating presentations, one is a more realistic expectation than the other
I'll believe AI can replace engineers when I see NVIDIA firing them. But like the graphic says, the manager's job seems a lot easier to replace instead.
Managers might not like people but they don't want to get rid of them. There's no cheap thrill from micromanaging an AI.
100,000% this - money or even utility seems to not be everything, compared to feeling self-importance
Plus it's harder to pass the buck and blame an AI for your screw ups. It would be perceived, as the kids say, as a skills issue.
Is a CEO a manager?
Yes. In big established companies they are managing managers.
In smaller companies, no
In bigger company's C levels manage VPs who manage directors who manage managers
It's management alll the way down
Depends on the size of the company.
Owners: with AI we can finally get rid of everyone
If we fire all developers and allow AIs to program themselves, the AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.
Can we build an AI manager that just keeps asking for different shades of red?
AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.
Yes. And that's our best case scenario. Worst case is a wildly incompetent, but still effective form of SkyNet.
It's the marketing department that should really be worried.
Like the C level isn't the marketing department
And to be fair, like always, good marketing is genius stuff.
But it also feels rare. I suspect precisely because C-suite and upper management love to mess with it, so the rote marketing approach gets normalized, which in turn drives all the decent marketing people away.
Only one of them gets to make the decision to fire the other
Could probably replace managers with AI, but being trained on most managers would mean it would be equally bad at its job.
I think the most likely is for the artists jobs to go away as art doesn't have to be exact, but code does.
Maybe the central problem is racing to put other people out of work period, regardless of who they are. Maybe putting people out of work is not a net benefit for society, it's actually negative in the long run, and only truly a benefit for shareholders. They don't need any more of those at the expense of the working class.
Ideally, nobody should have to work.
The problem is that labor-saving technology is never permitted to save labor. We make those displaced laborers go do other shit.
It should be a net benefit for society. Any system in which it isn't is a very flawed system. Like most of the world right now.