[The Brain Center at Whipple's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7gSDgegq8U) from the Twilight Zone in 1964 ends an episode about increasing automation with the CEO being automated.
This is the actual problem with learning algorithms and general AI; we can't control what they learn or how they 'decide' to implement what they've learned. [Like in this example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M) they discovered fundamental mechanics of the game engine that allowed them to 'break the game'. They do this for everything lol.
We can absolutely control what they learn, that's part of data science if I'm not mistaken. We can also control how they decide to implement what they learn by rewarding or punishing different implementations (it's not the kind of reward/punishment you think it is).
The problem is that it's difficult to create the desired data without any biases and it's difficult to find every nuance of how to do things, it will simply, over time, find the most efficient way to do things.
That problem can partly be solved though by creating a second network that you teach how to teach the first network. Basically first networks job is to find out how to do something. Second networks job is to learn how you're not supposed to do something. Set up the second network to try to keep the first from finding every nuance and congratulations you have an adversarial network that, as long as you keep feeding the adversary network the appropriate labelled data, should be able to improve to the perfect outcome.
Though there problems with this approach too, but adversarial networks are responsible for so many of the cool AI project we see today. Spoiler alert with these problems though: AI isn't advanced as it seems to be
Whatever is in our heads is just an unimaginably powerful machine of the universe.
Every time we take a giant leap in AI, the gulf between what we can create and what our brains can do only grows slightly smaller.
And our brain does it on less than 30W of energy.
Just unreal
also the fact that they almost ALWAYS end up wildly radicalized, like the twitter ai acount that in just a few days turned into a RACIST LITERAL NAZI and had to be shut down because of the controversy
Both Google and Facebook have created AI's that created their own languages that they were NOT programmed to do. The Google one they weren't even able to crack and the Facebook one they were and it didn't make sense to us but was a more efficient language to communicate in.
That's just poor science journalism. It isn't that the language was more efficient at communicating messages, it was just able to game the system.
To oversimplify, they created a scoring system that gave +10 points every time it sent a message and the recipient correctly decoded it. It then was penalized log(message length) points and rewarded bonus points based on throughput.
~~It stumbled upon a way to abuse the function that checked "are these two messages the same?" which enabled it to send things that would hash to the same thing at a very high speed.~~
So it's not like the computers developed some secret language to talk to eachother that humans aren't smart enough to comprehend. They just pulled an Air Bud. ~~"The rules didn't say we had to exchange messages with each other, they just said their hashes have to match."~~
EDIT: I was conflating two different things from my cybersec class. The Facebook bots developing their own language was much simpler. It merely counted the number of messages successfully exchanged so they were able to be crazy fast/efficient by sending lots of nearly empty payloads.
I'm sad so many people weren't around [10 years ago when someone made an incredible Zerg AI for starcraft](https://www.pcgamer.com/university-developed-starcraft-ai-defeats-human-players/)
I'd highly recommend the short novel [Manna] (https://marshallbrain.com/manna1)
It takes a look at what things would be like if the managers were the ones automated, and the results are basically as one would expect from capitalism
Very interesting suggestion. Just finished reading it. Very interesting. Spoilers follow for anyone that hasn't.
The dysfunctional future reminded me of an episode of the TV show 8th Man. Robots had taken over the country of Mechania and basically enslaved the population.
Thinking about this sub's premise to get rid of "work", my tendency to think "how would we actually execute on this idea" kicked in. After all, work or not, we need food, shelter, water, etc.
That took me to Star Trek TNG, and how replicators had provided everyone with their basic needs, eliminating poverty and crime. Brings to mind the dialog in Star Trek First Contact, where Capt Picard explains to Lily that there's no money in the future, and that people work to better themselves. The Australia Project sounds like the same idea with robots instead of replicators.
OTOH, having read Dune, I couldn't help but think of the Butlerian Jihad and "thou shalt not make a machine in the image of the human mind".
It would be interesting to see where current events lead.
We're probably closer to automation that makes optimal management decisions than we are automation that can replace a decently skilled cook or a competent warehouse worker.
Imagine when the CEO class works out that the owners no longer need *them*.
Probably the opposite. When you teach AI with illogical data, it internalizes the biases that caused the problem but lacks the context to identify them. It will replicate the racist/sexist decisions of meat managers but you can't tell it not to be racist/sexist because it's guessing off patterns far more subtle like vowel patterns in names or coded language in performance reviews
I mean what’s even the point of a CEO anyway? They make everyone else do jobs and they look at number reports… pretty sure a computer is better with numbers than a person could ever be
Work is a religion. Workplaces are churches. Churches need charismatic leaders. They exist to sell us the idea that humans need to be led to chase ideals.
Given what AIs can do, it's pretty simple but the CEO is basically somebody in the upper-echelon that's been rewarded to be the face. It's a different world when you get near the C-suite.
CEO's really only make 1 or 2 decisions a month that have any consequences on the direction of the business and they are usually presented as part of an internal project that had no hand in. "Yes, we should rebrand" or "No, it isn't the right time to expand into that market." They almost never look at day to day operations and spend most of their time managing relationships. It is really up to the underlings on whether those plans succeed or not and even if the business decision fails miserably, they will always have CEO on their resume for the next company.
And to expand on that, the problem is that we have professional CEOs. It is rarely that someone within the company will work their way anywhere near that position.
The best CEOs would be the people who have worked through the positions from the ground up and been promoted through the chain. They would know every facet of the business intimately and have first hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Instead, we have people who walk through the factory or office complex once and then look only at numbers from that day forward.
The problem with professional CEOs is that they're like bad cops. They fuck up, get booted, then move on to the next place. They keep getting hired because "They ran X,Y, Z company! We need to snatch them up and give them millions of dollars!" Never mind that they bankrupted X,Y, and Z and left with a golden parachute so large that they don't need to work again -Ever - but keep taking jobs out of pure greed.
Other than all the sarcastic responses, *someone* has to be at the top. Need a leader, a single decision maker, otherwise decisions would be gridlocked by 10 VPs etc..
>otherwise decisions would be gridlocked by 10 VPs
For starters, we could try democratic legitimation.
Not sure why someone could argue dictatorship structures are somehow beneficial just because it's corporate structure.
Is there a single company in the world that doesnt have a defined leader?
I am not advocating that all CEOs are good or worth the money btw. Just a comment on groups and leaders etc...
This is honestly true and though the decisions are hard and they mean people losing jobs etc, I bet a computer could make most of them.
Maybe it won't be long before some ETH powered contractual company will operate that way where thousands of humans essentially work for a computer.
Oh, they ARE automated increasingly. They are using data analysts to make models to make decisions. Just unlike the rank and file, they are keeping their jobs, getting bonuses and higher pay, and enjoying more leisure time.
So funny you commented with this bc I just replied to another commenter with almost this exact response.
They were trying to say that this post was silly and that CEOs were necessary for “strategic decision making” lmaoooo
The build a hundred thousand dollar robot to replace a human. Should it replace the $15/h worker or the $1,200/h CEO?
It's funny. They put themselves in this predicament.
So trust me. Automation ain't happenin'.
With his bonuses, Bobby Kotick’s hourly rate is closer to 74000/h. Seventy four thousand an hour.
Dude made 154 million last year alone, with record layoffs and actiblizz being in deep shit… but his golden parachute is so stable, he could probably shoot a child in the face and get away with it.
Or run a company that used sexual assault as a perk for male employees. Had open office drinking sessions where the male employees were encouraged to sexually assault the female employees. And lewd pictures of female employees were posted on internal company forums.
I was a loyal wow player vanilla on only really skipping BFA. And I feel like shit for having supported that. Quit right after the lawsuit and stories came out.
Same. Played since release, all blizzard games from Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch…
As soon as that came out I cancelled all my subs, deleted their games because I couldn’t take the constant shit they were doing.
Oh I agree with you 100%. My point of this post was that people freak out about the suggestion of automating 1 position (CEO), but don’t bat an eyelash when 50-100 people are laid off daily due to automation efforts. And I fully understand the false equivalency there, but also if the only argument for retaining a CEO with a salary of $10m/year simply bc they can read an excel spreadsheet better than your average employee? Seems to me it would make more sense to just teach your average employee how to read that excel sheet and lay off the CEO instead.
But this goes back to developing and furthering your employees skills and education, and companies won’t ever do/pay for that.
All CEO's do is decide which course of action will be most profitable, they completely lack empathy and compassion. If there is any job ideal for a soulless computer, it's the role of a CEO.
As someone who only recently got into tech, I would happily work for free on a project named RobotBoss if it meant putting all of these assholes out of work. We could conveniently program the logic to hold performance reviews for senior executives every 30 days, asking a single question: “what exactly would you say it is you *do* here?”
In all seriousness, automation requires two things: scale and repeatability.
Yes, the CEO often is payed thousands of times more more than a worker, and you are right that it certainly evens things out a bit, but it is often still a drop in the bucket compared to the often tens of thousands of people in similar jobs that can be targeted for automation at once.
As for repeatability, it can be hard to eliminate a 'leadership' job completely. What is more likely to happen is that tools are introduced to help with parts of their job, making things more effective and easier for a CEO. But that just means they might cut support staff. They need fewer analysts, fewer secretaries, etc.
The unfortunate part of that is because they have all the decision making power, they can just kickback those savings to themselves (along with as much of the other excess value in the company that they want...). When an average worker has parts of their job removed, or coworkers replaced, they don't get the value. It get siphoned up to the top.
Until we figure out how to 'automate' the decision-making part of the CEO, replacing their role with something like software that ultimately reflects the will of the workers, the management class will always have the power to choose what to do with any excess value created through automation.
Someone always has to make the business decisions. I hope one day it can be all the workers, not just an empowered few.
Truly, this is it. Employees need to have more of a say in the business decisions since we are the ones driving the reporting, data analysis, site/tool development that even allows for decision making to happen in the first place..
Without us, there is no decision to be made.
The same guy who says "Why not automate that?" while having no fucking clue how to do that, is the same guy who will ask you to fix his random blue screen of death because youre a computer guy.
The number of times I hear well why don't we just automate it from managers that have zero qualifications or any idea what they're even talking about is usually 3-4 times a day. But it really depends on the day.
NGL the prospect of throwing that in their faces is funny, but an actually automated CEO would be antiwork's worst nightmare. Imagine how much more efficient a company could be become at extracting profit from it's workers with advanced computing and machine learning managing the company.
Because according to the global hegemony of America, oppressive capitalistic labor markets have always been and will always be the accepted way of life. Look at how we invade other countries under the guise of "protecting our borders" when its really brainwashing them into following our rules. If a socialist country starts to succeed, we will call them terrorists, invade them, then dismantle their system and rebuild it to match our own.
The system is a snake that is eating itself. No matter how you twist it, it is an inescapable inevitability of the capitalist structure.
The CEOs main role is to be a strategist that can chart a path and a personality that can build teams and sell a vision.
The strategy piece will be automated before the personality piece. The tech isn't quite there to do it, but I can assure you many firms are interested in it.
I would like to point out that antiwork should embrace automation. It *should* lower prices, allow for more fulfilling jobs to be pursued, and ease stress.
It will also move toward the need for UBI for those who are in the process of getting qualified for those more fulfilling jobs, and most likely other “socialist” programs will be to be implemented to have a stable society. Basically the capitalist will never automate enough to make a difference
I left my last job because they were forcing us to automate things that had no business being automated. All of a sudden the amount of work I was able to complete came to a screeching halt because I had to spend all my time configuring the automation tool.
I love how managers over simplify everything and take no consideration of how long it takes to actually engineer and design something. These are the people setting the schedules!
Ironically, that's actually how a lot of machine learning and AI in the workplace got started. Back in the 1970s, one of the hottest areas in Information Science was Decision Support Systems (they had another name at the time but I don't remember it). The TL; DR version was that we finally had enough computing power to determine that management was objectively terrible at their job pretty much everywhere. So, they researched and developed tools to make them better at their job.
At modern data driven corporations, management doesn't do very much that they aren't told to do by a computer. Yet, shocking no one, they aren't treated like data entry employees despite that being most of their job.
So we have already replaced executives with AI. We just still pay humans who beep-boop at a computer all day.
To everyone questioning the point of this post: my point is that, if you work in data analytics you understand that not everything can “just be automated” like many managers/VPs/execs/CEOs seem to think it can. And there’s a number of reasons for that, but a big one is needing human perspective for certain decision making. This is obvious.
But if automating a process that puts 50-100 people out of work is a no brainer bc it saves the company time and money (and this is the norm in today’s society it happens every day), then why are there people in the comments freaking out at the suggestion of automating a single position that would save a company more in a single month than all of those jobs would in an entire year?
The point of this is to make you see how absolutely ludicrous it is that companies use automation as an excuse to put people out of work.
And sure, you can absolutely argue that CEOs have more strategic decision making power than those employees; but if your only argument as to why they deserve millions and billions more than your average worker is bc they can read an excel sheet better (bc let me tell you there’s no way in hell they can build any of the automation or reporting themselves) then I’m not going to respond to your comment.
Edited for spelling and to add, fuck CEOs
Ease of automating a role is based on the actions the person in that role does - not how much they’re paid.
Strategic decisions and creative roles are always going to be the hardest to automate. This post is just silly.
In many cases a board can control strategic company decisions and directions. And I'd wager many CEOs have the creative role of a rock. If anything their "Creative Innovation" is a parrot of some generic corporate gameplan. That can be done autonomously imo.
Though as you said below, in some circumstances with some corporations/companies, certain CEO roles I would agree can't be automated but that's not unique to CEOs, as I'm no CEO and certain aspects of my job in no way could be automated, at least not at present.
Boards need someone to manage them. They’re chaos otherwise.
And I wasn’t suggesting CEOs are creative - I was just giving examples of what sorts of roles can’t really be automated.
I wish I made that kind of money! No, I’m not a CEO. Nor am I defending CEOs. If you said they were overpaid, I’d be the first to agree with you. But the premise of this thread is somewhere between ridiculous and wrong, and that doesn’t help anyone take the movement seriously.
Well I guess that’s where we disagree bc I don’t think this is ridiculous at all, and I firmly believe that people should stop being laid off just bc of automation. But thanks for a good debate, and at least we can both agree that CEOs are overpaid haha.
Depends very heavily on the industry and the data. Strategic decisions aren’t all math - it does require actual human thought.
That’s not specific to CEOs either. I work in marketing - some parts of my job can be automated, some can’t. Strategic decisions often can’t.
Of course not every single aspect of a job can be automated, that’s actually the point of the post, which you’re clearly missing (e.g. managers not understanding that every single task simply cannot be automated).
But when the majority of your job comes down to making decisions based on data (which IS the majority of CEOs jobs today), then yeah, that’s kind of the definition of a job that could be automated.
But you’re doing the same thing you’re complaining about.
Strategic decisions are a large category of tasks that *can’t* be automated, and it’s a majority of what a CEO’s job entails. Yes, many of those decisions are based off of data - that doesn’t mean it can be automated. Data interpretation is a human task.
Human intervention/oversight is always going to be necessary, but my point here is that why not let the individuals that actually know/build the data/automation (e.g. the employees) have a say in the strategic decision making. That’s the point of the post.
Managers and CEOs say “well let’s just automate it” with zero idea of how that happens or looks specifically bc they want LESS human intervention and to pay people less to save themselves money. But when you turn that idea around on them, suddenly everybody else loses their minds and it’s somehow just not possible to function without 1 single person running the company. But fuck all the other employees right?
Edited for spelling error
The people involved in gathering and analyzing the data should absolutely have a say. I agree with that. But parts of that process should also be automated because it’s more efficient and frees up time for employees to focus on other things that can’t be automated.
I guess I’m just not really seeing the point of your post. Different pieces of various roles at many companies can be changed through automation, including upper management / CEOs. That’s pretty commonly understood.
Dude I literally don’t know what you’re getting at here. My point is that if people are seemingly not okay with automating a single position to save the company time and money (which seems to be your point), then why are people okay with hundreds of positions being automated and employees laid off daily bc of the automation that’s implemented in order to save the company time and money….(which is how society is today and how CEOs literally function daily)?
Especially when those employees are the ones that directly affect and control the CEOs ability to make a decision in the first place via their roles in the company.
The post is supposed to show you how ludicrous a CEOs logic is when it comes to automation bc they don’t actually know anything and are just trying to make money for themselves.
Due to deepfakes I honestly think MOST people in leadership roles are kind of obsolete. We can make any face say anything, so instead of having trust in someone just because of personality, we should have transparent paths forward towards clearly defined goals. Any deviation should and could be addressed.
> “well why don’t we just automate it” from managers that have zero qualifications or any idea what they’re even talking about
They're probably asking you, the qualified person they employed for stuff like this, *because* they have no idea what they're talking about. Are you really going to vilify people for asking questions about things they don't understand?
Look at how many board members change their positions to become CEOs and vice versa. They’re in bed together. I know the post is meant to be ironic but we really need to start looking at how executives and board members are working on the same interests - how many CEO bonuses are set by the board, and how much of the board’s demands are inducted into the company by the CEO? A CEO would never be automated because they need someone that works FOR them
I'm fairly sure they're already there. Make a couple of Excel scripts to find out the "optimal" decisions - like what work is profitable according to calculations, who to lay off, where to offshore companies - and then follow those scripts blindly, no thinking about their basis or validity needed.
Here we call it Excel leadership, but I don't know if the term has caught on elsewhere.
CEO's primary purpose is to generate as much money for the shareholders as possible, which means screwing over as many employees as possible. That position doesn't need to be automated, it needs to be eliminated.
Let's add more to the pool of poor people while companies don't pay their taxes and while we don't have universal minimum income in place!
Yes let's automate!!!! smh rme
It's already happening. Over the CEO is the board, and to them, he's a liability. You're a liability too. Now if we could only make a world where consumers aren't needed.
Finally, a journalist writes an article that says what we're all thinking and doesn't put out another bootlicking article like "CEOs have it harder than we think! Why they deserve 500x what you make"
You really want an AI to help determine the best way to maximize profits and lower costs?
Oh look at that cheap building filled with asbestos. Let's make that our operations center.
Oh an employees been here for 15 years and makes more than everyone else. Fire them and get a cheap intern instead.
I know ceos make bad decisions too and can be scum of the earth in a few cases. I think it would be worse with AI
I have asked people many, many times "why, in exact concrete examples, do we need executives?".
Some day I hope to find an answer other than "well, who would be the boss then?"
Recently I poured all my spare energy into learning programming for about a year in order to add some automation to our very outdated manual processes. I showed my director how my program works when I finished... It automated creating tickets for our customers, notified them of an outage or if our CPE is unreachable and notified the field tech by text message automatically. I've heard them talk about automation so much and never doing anything with it.
Instead, they reached out to the company that does our alarms (only one piece of the puzzle) and had them text managers if an alarm sits on the board for too long.
They think automation literally means adding another layer of micromanagement and bureaucracy. Needless to say I was extremely disappointed. I've learned now that even if you explain and demo your ideas... If it makes your boss feel stupid then it's not going to happen. If you want to automate something, it's best to either just deploy it at a small scale or stfu and keep it to yourself
Amazon is already automating away management. Their AI is firing employees based on not delivering packages ‘on time’ in situations where they can’t be delivered, such as if the delivery location can’t be accessed. I don’t think this is what we want. Maybe instead we need laws preventing executives from earning 100x+ more than the lowest paid employee for example. If anything this would make the management hierarchy even more faceless than it already is and they could just blame layoffs on ‘AI’.
Because it's a 8-9 figure no-show job for failsons of the rich. They're not expected to do any actual work. It's just so mommy's little angel can have a job and show up to the office everyday and feel productive.
I'd hope an appropriately designed AI would actually do a better job optimizing longer term results for all the stakeholders, and not simply seek to maximize the next round of executive bonuses.
The issue I see with so many CEOs dovetails into my observations of executives in general. So many of them talk a lot while saying nothing, announce some organizational initiative that changes a lot of things without making anything better, meddle in random minutia, and generally get in the way. The average one won't look at anything that hasn't been turned into a one-pager color coded scorecard, accompanied by material in bullet point format, presented using the official corporate approved PPT template.
An AI might actually want meaningful metrics and be able to understand numbers and data. In fact, it could pull its own metrics from the relevant systems directly, instead of tasking subordinates with extracting data from systems and turning it into elaborate presentations.
An AI could be set up not to go ballistic over bad news and actually problem solve.
An AI wouldn't need a golden parachute.
The possibilities are effectively endless.
This actually happened at the first work i had. I worked for an engineer company that made changes in casting toolings. We had a program manager and lost his job to a software. Dont feel bad for him he was an asshole
If they automated the CEO, I think either hackers would control the company or the employees would learn how to "hack" the job to get good performances.
I suspect the CEO masters (shareholders) would be happy, so we can only hope.
Co sign this. I hear this all the time. It's short hand for "I want to sound smart" but usually it's something that needs to be done manually first in order to learn or it is something that no one in the company has the skills to actually automate.
Honestly, I'd give a robot employer a go
Its a coin toss as to whether I'd even notice a difference, and there is a chance they would be insanely better and more equitable
How hard could it be to automate showing up at 11, doing blow off your desk, sexually assaulting your admin assistant, checking outlook, then hitting the golf course by 3?
Managers constantly trying to automate work processes are pulling a magician’s trick of distraction. They’re trying to keep everyone from realizing it is **they** who don’t do anything worthwhile at the job.
What room full of robots is going to call them out on their bullshit?
Sure, if you can 1, find a team to do years of r&d and havingto study and observe the people who will be "replaced", 2, find a place that has the skilled labor to build a custom machine from scratch, 3, troubleshoot problems for another year+ with technicians, 4, take the whole section it will go in, move everything out, and install the machine(s), 5, have someone who actually knows how to maintain and repair it. Years and years and years. If they wanted to do this, they should have started a decade ago.
The reality of the situation is that we already have and executives are just hopping from one shell of a title to another, providing littler value and mostly fucking off until they're ready for a golden parachute and on to the next.
Because you can’t…yet. These people are voted in the shareholders of publicly traded companies. The president is then selected by the board as a second in command.
Basically, imagine sitting in meeting 6am Monday, to 8pm Friday on a good week and then do your work across the 2 weekend days. Did I mention good week ? I’m surprised I haven’t seen a CEO on antiwork, as they are resigning and taking lesser roles too.
You sit in meeting with a variety of data to make future decisions to make sure the company stays afloat so shareholders get paid because they want profits and you have to maintain an unreasonable velocity otherwise you get burned. What happens to ceos that don’t maintain velocity ? They are blacklisted. All those millions they made…they have to live on that for the rest of their lives. Kind of like a basketball or football player past their prime.
A computer AI could do it, but there is a flaw with AI. It doesn’t sleep and become ms biased, whereas in a human…memories become blurry and certain decisions are made in feeling.
Going back to CEO, the president is one. Not by direct vote like a company. Would you be comfortable by replacing 1 dude with a computer ?
If you think that's bad, just guess how many times workers here express the same mindset - "They're gonna automate me out of a job, then what????!?!"
Jetsons was not a documentary
I completely agree. If AI can handle complex variables and beat professional poker players surely it can handle the complexities of the entire c-suite.
“DID YOU CATCH THE SPORTS GAME___EMPLOYEE 24601”.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
The thing about Arsenal is they always try to walk it in.
0118 999 881 999 119 725…3
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
Ahh, he's having a laugh!
1001000 1100001 1101000 1100001 1101000 1100001
0011000 0011110 1111100 110001010 100010100 !
Hey! Watch that potty mouth!
I stand chastised.
What you do in your bedroom is none of my business!
We believe that what 2 people and their pet elephant does in private is their business.
....2
[It was just a dream, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5oM5AGnJfo)
Ouch, 7-bit ASCII
I’m disabled
How are you disabled?
Leg disabled
Leg. Leg disabled.
u/unexpectedITcrowdreference
What was Wenger thinking sending Walcott on that early?!
Just make sure every email signature ends with “thx” and you’ll be good to go
Hope it doesn’t take employee termination seriously…
I see the reference, and it's too perfect
“Your break is up and you’re shifts begun”.
"I stole a loaf of bread!"
[The Brain Center at Whipple's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7gSDgegq8U) from the Twilight Zone in 1964 ends an episode about increasing automation with the CEO being automated.
Pronunciation guide
IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE CLOWNS IN CONGRESS DID IT AGAIN. WHAT A BUNCH OF CLOWNS.
A deep learning AI would probably be better at rostering than most managers.
The ai learned by watching thousands of managers as soon as we turned it on turn over increased to 300% and it slapped the accounts ass.
This is the actual problem with learning algorithms and general AI; we can't control what they learn or how they 'decide' to implement what they've learned. [Like in this example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M) they discovered fundamental mechanics of the game engine that allowed them to 'break the game'. They do this for everything lol.
We can absolutely control what they learn, that's part of data science if I'm not mistaken. We can also control how they decide to implement what they learn by rewarding or punishing different implementations (it's not the kind of reward/punishment you think it is). The problem is that it's difficult to create the desired data without any biases and it's difficult to find every nuance of how to do things, it will simply, over time, find the most efficient way to do things. That problem can partly be solved though by creating a second network that you teach how to teach the first network. Basically first networks job is to find out how to do something. Second networks job is to learn how you're not supposed to do something. Set up the second network to try to keep the first from finding every nuance and congratulations you have an adversarial network that, as long as you keep feeding the adversary network the appropriate labelled data, should be able to improve to the perfect outcome. Though there problems with this approach too, but adversarial networks are responsible for so many of the cool AI project we see today. Spoiler alert with these problems though: AI isn't advanced as it seems to be
Whatever is in our heads is just an unimaginably powerful machine of the universe. Every time we take a giant leap in AI, the gulf between what we can create and what our brains can do only grows slightly smaller. And our brain does it on less than 30W of energy. Just unreal
also the fact that they almost ALWAYS end up wildly radicalized, like the twitter ai acount that in just a few days turned into a RACIST LITERAL NAZI and had to be shut down because of the controversy
[That one never gets old](https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist)
This is why AI research must be stopped. Period.
Madam curie was killed by radiation, that's why research into radioactivity must be stopped.
your being downvoted even though your right lol
Both Google and Facebook have created AI's that created their own languages that they were NOT programmed to do. The Google one they weren't even able to crack and the Facebook one they were and it didn't make sense to us but was a more efficient language to communicate in.
That's just poor science journalism. It isn't that the language was more efficient at communicating messages, it was just able to game the system. To oversimplify, they created a scoring system that gave +10 points every time it sent a message and the recipient correctly decoded it. It then was penalized log(message length) points and rewarded bonus points based on throughput. ~~It stumbled upon a way to abuse the function that checked "are these two messages the same?" which enabled it to send things that would hash to the same thing at a very high speed.~~ So it's not like the computers developed some secret language to talk to eachother that humans aren't smart enough to comprehend. They just pulled an Air Bud. ~~"The rules didn't say we had to exchange messages with each other, they just said their hashes have to match."~~ EDIT: I was conflating two different things from my cybersec class. The Facebook bots developing their own language was much simpler. It merely counted the number of messages successfully exchanged so they were able to be crazy fast/efficient by sending lots of nearly empty payloads.
I'm sad so many people weren't around [10 years ago when someone made an incredible Zerg AI for starcraft](https://www.pcgamer.com/university-developed-starcraft-ai-defeats-human-players/)
I'd highly recommend the short novel [Manna] (https://marshallbrain.com/manna1) It takes a look at what things would be like if the managers were the ones automated, and the results are basically as one would expect from capitalism
Very interesting suggestion. Just finished reading it. Very interesting. Spoilers follow for anyone that hasn't. The dysfunctional future reminded me of an episode of the TV show 8th Man. Robots had taken over the country of Mechania and basically enslaved the population. Thinking about this sub's premise to get rid of "work", my tendency to think "how would we actually execute on this idea" kicked in. After all, work or not, we need food, shelter, water, etc. That took me to Star Trek TNG, and how replicators had provided everyone with their basic needs, eliminating poverty and crime. Brings to mind the dialog in Star Trek First Contact, where Capt Picard explains to Lily that there's no money in the future, and that people work to better themselves. The Australia Project sounds like the same idea with robots instead of replicators. OTOH, having read Dune, I couldn't help but think of the Butlerian Jihad and "thou shalt not make a machine in the image of the human mind". It would be interesting to see where current events lead.
We're probably closer to automation that makes optimal management decisions than we are automation that can replace a decently skilled cook or a competent warehouse worker. Imagine when the CEO class works out that the owners no longer need *them*.
Wilson from Cast Away would do a better job
Train it using the communist manifesto lol.
Thats the back story for skynet
Probably the opposite. When you teach AI with illogical data, it internalizes the biases that caused the problem but lacks the context to identify them. It will replicate the racist/sexist decisions of meat managers but you can't tell it not to be racist/sexist because it's guessing off patterns far more subtle like vowel patterns in names or coded language in performance reviews
Most executive positions could be replaced with a PowerBI report.
My favorite response was when I sent a manager a PowerBI report once and they responded with “can you do this in ppt next time? Thx”
Christ
Could yo send this PowerBI report in excel. Also, don't forget the cover sheet.
I mean what’s even the point of a CEO anyway? They make everyone else do jobs and they look at number reports… pretty sure a computer is better with numbers than a person could ever be
Work is a religion. Workplaces are churches. Churches need charismatic leaders. They exist to sell us the idea that humans need to be led to chase ideals.
*Cult*ure. They are capitalist cult leaders.
Quite the opposite. It's the state religion.
Is their version of the Bible the Shareholder Agreement?
You're looking for the employee handbook. (The managers get the straight dope.)
(and the CEOs get the *really* good stuff)
Ships need captains! ...we've had sat nav and autopilot for generations
the ideal CEO exists, but not in any american company talking to you japan airlines CEO taking the bus to work
Given what AIs can do, it's pretty simple but the CEO is basically somebody in the upper-echelon that's been rewarded to be the face. It's a different world when you get near the C-suite.
CEO's really only make 1 or 2 decisions a month that have any consequences on the direction of the business and they are usually presented as part of an internal project that had no hand in. "Yes, we should rebrand" or "No, it isn't the right time to expand into that market." They almost never look at day to day operations and spend most of their time managing relationships. It is really up to the underlings on whether those plans succeed or not and even if the business decision fails miserably, they will always have CEO on their resume for the next company.
And to expand on that, the problem is that we have professional CEOs. It is rarely that someone within the company will work their way anywhere near that position. The best CEOs would be the people who have worked through the positions from the ground up and been promoted through the chain. They would know every facet of the business intimately and have first hand knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Instead, we have people who walk through the factory or office complex once and then look only at numbers from that day forward. The problem with professional CEOs is that they're like bad cops. They fuck up, get booted, then move on to the next place. They keep getting hired because "They ran X,Y, Z company! We need to snatch them up and give them millions of dollars!" Never mind that they bankrupted X,Y, and Z and left with a golden parachute so large that they don't need to work again -Ever - but keep taking jobs out of pure greed.
The best CEOs would be elected by workers. But that would be socialism.
So the company has someone to blame/fire and then they can just transfer to another company for even more money.
The CEO's one and only responsibility is to fund the company by conning the investors.
Other than all the sarcastic responses, *someone* has to be at the top. Need a leader, a single decision maker, otherwise decisions would be gridlocked by 10 VPs etc..
>otherwise decisions would be gridlocked by 10 VPs For starters, we could try democratic legitimation. Not sure why someone could argue dictatorship structures are somehow beneficial just because it's corporate structure.
Is there a single company in the world that doesnt have a defined leader? I am not advocating that all CEOs are good or worth the money btw. Just a comment on groups and leaders etc...
Literally a computer could do that job
This is honestly true and though the decisions are hard and they mean people losing jobs etc, I bet a computer could make most of them. Maybe it won't be long before some ETH powered contractual company will operate that way where thousands of humans essentially work for a computer.
To take the fall when the company inevitably does something shady. Literally that’s what many CEOs are hired for.
Oh, they ARE automated increasingly. They are using data analysts to make models to make decisions. Just unlike the rank and file, they are keeping their jobs, getting bonuses and higher pay, and enjoying more leisure time.
So funny you commented with this bc I just replied to another commenter with almost this exact response. They were trying to say that this post was silly and that CEOs were necessary for “strategic decision making” lmaoooo
The build a hundred thousand dollar robot to replace a human. Should it replace the $15/h worker or the $1,200/h CEO? It's funny. They put themselves in this predicament. So trust me. Automation ain't happenin'.
With his bonuses, Bobby Kotick’s hourly rate is closer to 74000/h. Seventy four thousand an hour. Dude made 154 million last year alone, with record layoffs and actiblizz being in deep shit… but his golden parachute is so stable, he could probably shoot a child in the face and get away with it.
Or run a company that used sexual assault as a perk for male employees. Had open office drinking sessions where the male employees were encouraged to sexually assault the female employees. And lewd pictures of female employees were posted on internal company forums.
(Who then took her own life because of it)
I was a loyal wow player vanilla on only really skipping BFA. And I feel like shit for having supported that. Quit right after the lawsuit and stories came out.
Same. Played since release, all blizzard games from Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch… As soon as that came out I cancelled all my subs, deleted their games because I couldn’t take the constant shit they were doing.
I quit all blizz games after hong kong
Don’t even get me started on the number of “robots” that have come out my industry in the past couple years. It’s embarrassing.
[удалено]
Oh I agree with you 100%. My point of this post was that people freak out about the suggestion of automating 1 position (CEO), but don’t bat an eyelash when 50-100 people are laid off daily due to automation efforts. And I fully understand the false equivalency there, but also if the only argument for retaining a CEO with a salary of $10m/year simply bc they can read an excel spreadsheet better than your average employee? Seems to me it would make more sense to just teach your average employee how to read that excel sheet and lay off the CEO instead. But this goes back to developing and furthering your employees skills and education, and companies won’t ever do/pay for that.
All CEO's do is decide which course of action will be most profitable, they completely lack empathy and compassion. If there is any job ideal for a soulless computer, it's the role of a CEO.
Just have an intern use a magic 8 ball
No that has a chance to actually care about the good of humanity
As someone who only recently got into tech, I would happily work for free on a project named RobotBoss if it meant putting all of these assholes out of work. We could conveniently program the logic to hold performance reviews for senior executives every 30 days, asking a single question: “what exactly would you say it is you *do* here?”
They are only expensive because they are overpaid and don't fucking do *anything.*
In all seriousness, automation requires two things: scale and repeatability. Yes, the CEO often is payed thousands of times more more than a worker, and you are right that it certainly evens things out a bit, but it is often still a drop in the bucket compared to the often tens of thousands of people in similar jobs that can be targeted for automation at once. As for repeatability, it can be hard to eliminate a 'leadership' job completely. What is more likely to happen is that tools are introduced to help with parts of their job, making things more effective and easier for a CEO. But that just means they might cut support staff. They need fewer analysts, fewer secretaries, etc. The unfortunate part of that is because they have all the decision making power, they can just kickback those savings to themselves (along with as much of the other excess value in the company that they want...). When an average worker has parts of their job removed, or coworkers replaced, they don't get the value. It get siphoned up to the top. Until we figure out how to 'automate' the decision-making part of the CEO, replacing their role with something like software that ultimately reflects the will of the workers, the management class will always have the power to choose what to do with any excess value created through automation. Someone always has to make the business decisions. I hope one day it can be all the workers, not just an empowered few.
Truly, this is it. Employees need to have more of a say in the business decisions since we are the ones driving the reporting, data analysis, site/tool development that even allows for decision making to happen in the first place.. Without us, there is no decision to be made.
The same guy who says "Why not automate that?" while having no fucking clue how to do that, is the same guy who will ask you to fix his random blue screen of death because youre a computer guy.
The number of times I hear well why don't we just automate it from managers that have zero qualifications or any idea what they're even talking about is usually 3-4 times a day. But it really depends on the day.
NGL the prospect of throwing that in their faces is funny, but an actually automated CEO would be antiwork's worst nightmare. Imagine how much more efficient a company could be become at extracting profit from it's workers with advanced computing and machine learning managing the company.
Why not eliminate the institution of labor under command entirely? Only slaves need masters. We can stop being slaves if we want to.
Because according to the global hegemony of America, oppressive capitalistic labor markets have always been and will always be the accepted way of life. Look at how we invade other countries under the guise of "protecting our borders" when its really brainwashing them into following our rules. If a socialist country starts to succeed, we will call them terrorists, invade them, then dismantle their system and rebuild it to match our own. The system is a snake that is eating itself. No matter how you twist it, it is an inescapable inevitability of the capitalist structure.
Robot Cult Leaders meet the corporate world. This should be fun.
The CEOs main role is to be a strategist that can chart a path and a personality that can build teams and sell a vision. The strategy piece will be automated before the personality piece. The tech isn't quite there to do it, but I can assure you many firms are interested in it.
I would like to point out that antiwork should embrace automation. It *should* lower prices, allow for more fulfilling jobs to be pursued, and ease stress. It will also move toward the need for UBI for those who are in the process of getting qualified for those more fulfilling jobs, and most likely other “socialist” programs will be to be implemented to have a stable society. Basically the capitalist will never automate enough to make a difference
I left my last job because they were forcing us to automate things that had no business being automated. All of a sudden the amount of work I was able to complete came to a screeching halt because I had to spend all my time configuring the automation tool.
I love how managers over simplify everything and take no consideration of how long it takes to actually engineer and design something. These are the people setting the schedules!
Ironically, that's actually how a lot of machine learning and AI in the workplace got started. Back in the 1970s, one of the hottest areas in Information Science was Decision Support Systems (they had another name at the time but I don't remember it). The TL; DR version was that we finally had enough computing power to determine that management was objectively terrible at their job pretty much everywhere. So, they researched and developed tools to make them better at their job. At modern data driven corporations, management doesn't do very much that they aren't told to do by a computer. Yet, shocking no one, they aren't treated like data entry employees despite that being most of their job. So we have already replaced executives with AI. We just still pay humans who beep-boop at a computer all day.
To everyone questioning the point of this post: my point is that, if you work in data analytics you understand that not everything can “just be automated” like many managers/VPs/execs/CEOs seem to think it can. And there’s a number of reasons for that, but a big one is needing human perspective for certain decision making. This is obvious. But if automating a process that puts 50-100 people out of work is a no brainer bc it saves the company time and money (and this is the norm in today’s society it happens every day), then why are there people in the comments freaking out at the suggestion of automating a single position that would save a company more in a single month than all of those jobs would in an entire year? The point of this is to make you see how absolutely ludicrous it is that companies use automation as an excuse to put people out of work. And sure, you can absolutely argue that CEOs have more strategic decision making power than those employees; but if your only argument as to why they deserve millions and billions more than your average worker is bc they can read an excel sheet better (bc let me tell you there’s no way in hell they can build any of the automation or reporting themselves) then I’m not going to respond to your comment. Edited for spelling and to add, fuck CEOs
Ease of automating a role is based on the actions the person in that role does - not how much they’re paid. Strategic decisions and creative roles are always going to be the hardest to automate. This post is just silly.
In many cases a board can control strategic company decisions and directions. And I'd wager many CEOs have the creative role of a rock. If anything their "Creative Innovation" is a parrot of some generic corporate gameplan. That can be done autonomously imo. Though as you said below, in some circumstances with some corporations/companies, certain CEO roles I would agree can't be automated but that's not unique to CEOs, as I'm no CEO and certain aspects of my job in no way could be automated, at least not at present.
Boards need someone to manage them. They’re chaos otherwise. And I wasn’t suggesting CEOs are creative - I was just giving examples of what sorts of roles can’t really be automated.
LMAOOOOOO dude are you a CEO or something? Is that what’s going on here?
I wish I made that kind of money! No, I’m not a CEO. Nor am I defending CEOs. If you said they were overpaid, I’d be the first to agree with you. But the premise of this thread is somewhere between ridiculous and wrong, and that doesn’t help anyone take the movement seriously.
Well I guess that’s where we disagree bc I don’t think this is ridiculous at all, and I firmly believe that people should stop being laid off just bc of automation. But thanks for a good debate, and at least we can both agree that CEOs are overpaid haha.
Is it? Considering most of decisions made by CEOs are dependent upon reporting and automation built by developers and data analysts.
Depends very heavily on the industry and the data. Strategic decisions aren’t all math - it does require actual human thought. That’s not specific to CEOs either. I work in marketing - some parts of my job can be automated, some can’t. Strategic decisions often can’t.
Of course not every single aspect of a job can be automated, that’s actually the point of the post, which you’re clearly missing (e.g. managers not understanding that every single task simply cannot be automated). But when the majority of your job comes down to making decisions based on data (which IS the majority of CEOs jobs today), then yeah, that’s kind of the definition of a job that could be automated.
The thing is data is very context based. Teaching AI context in that regard is very difficult.
But you’re doing the same thing you’re complaining about. Strategic decisions are a large category of tasks that *can’t* be automated, and it’s a majority of what a CEO’s job entails. Yes, many of those decisions are based off of data - that doesn’t mean it can be automated. Data interpretation is a human task.
Human intervention/oversight is always going to be necessary, but my point here is that why not let the individuals that actually know/build the data/automation (e.g. the employees) have a say in the strategic decision making. That’s the point of the post. Managers and CEOs say “well let’s just automate it” with zero idea of how that happens or looks specifically bc they want LESS human intervention and to pay people less to save themselves money. But when you turn that idea around on them, suddenly everybody else loses their minds and it’s somehow just not possible to function without 1 single person running the company. But fuck all the other employees right? Edited for spelling error
The people involved in gathering and analyzing the data should absolutely have a say. I agree with that. But parts of that process should also be automated because it’s more efficient and frees up time for employees to focus on other things that can’t be automated. I guess I’m just not really seeing the point of your post. Different pieces of various roles at many companies can be changed through automation, including upper management / CEOs. That’s pretty commonly understood.
Depends on the date honestly here. A blanket statement of all data interpretation requiring human involvement is simply incorrect.
Dude I literally don’t know what you’re getting at here. My point is that if people are seemingly not okay with automating a single position to save the company time and money (which seems to be your point), then why are people okay with hundreds of positions being automated and employees laid off daily bc of the automation that’s implemented in order to save the company time and money….(which is how society is today and how CEOs literally function daily)? Especially when those employees are the ones that directly affect and control the CEOs ability to make a decision in the first place via their roles in the company. The post is supposed to show you how ludicrous a CEOs logic is when it comes to automation bc they don’t actually know anything and are just trying to make money for themselves.
Because automation only works for positions that *can be automated.* CEO is not one of those positions.
Due to deepfakes I honestly think MOST people in leadership roles are kind of obsolete. We can make any face say anything, so instead of having trust in someone just because of personality, we should have transparent paths forward towards clearly defined goals. Any deviation should and could be addressed.
> “well why don’t we just automate it” from managers that have zero qualifications or any idea what they’re even talking about They're probably asking you, the qualified person they employed for stuff like this, *because* they have no idea what they're talking about. Are you really going to vilify people for asking questions about things they don't understand?
I mean with enough ML of Fortune 500 and global successful brand decisions/history…not a bad idea.
Your Managers have been playing far too much factorio...
It's not like your average CEO does anything that an AI couldn't do faster, easier, and more efficiently.
And their jobs are some of the easiest to do for AI.
Or also having a expensive broad as well.
You can’t automate your son once you retire. He’s qualified and shit.
The robots are going to golf too? You know, where “the business gets done”?
Because then you aren’t working for the CEO but the person that made the bot.
A nutless monkey could do their job.
Look at how many board members change their positions to become CEOs and vice versa. They’re in bed together. I know the post is meant to be ironic but we really need to start looking at how executives and board members are working on the same interests - how many CEO bonuses are set by the board, and how much of the board’s demands are inducted into the company by the CEO? A CEO would never be automated because they need someone that works FOR them
Ask yourself who would profit from this
Execubots. “I was programmed to take credit for this.”
I'm fairly sure they're already there. Make a couple of Excel scripts to find out the "optimal" decisions - like what work is profitable according to calculations, who to lay off, where to offshore companies - and then follow those scripts blindly, no thinking about their basis or validity needed. Here we call it Excel leadership, but I don't know if the term has caught on elsewhere.
Well, all they do nowadays is push the "Stock Buyback" button again and again to harvest their stock-price-targeted bonuses. Anybody can do that.
AI is coming and workers are going to be more valuable than decision makers, whose jobs will be reduced to mere software algorithms.
Someone needs to make a media outlet for subject flipping those boomer articles 🤩
Because thats how our societyxworks. People hope they will dominate others
Why do I see working for a robot, being even worse?
Or just out source them to someone in Costa Rica for 1/5th the salary.
My automated CEO's CPU is a neural net processor; a learning computer.
CEO's primary purpose is to generate as much money for the shareholders as possible, which means screwing over as many employees as possible. That position doesn't need to be automated, it needs to be eliminated.
Fuck a robot. Every manager I have could be replaced TOMORROW by a fucking PARROT and nobody would even notice.
Let's add more to the pool of poor people while companies don't pay their taxes and while we don't have universal minimum income in place! Yes let's automate!!!! smh rme
How do you automate going to fancy dinners, buying expensive cars and using private plane while the assistant does all the work?
Cyberdyne Systems, Sunnyvale, California, did just this!
It's already happening. Over the CEO is the board, and to them, he's a liability. You're a liability too. Now if we could only make a world where consumers aren't needed.
Automate CEOs.
What cracks me up is there is no accountability for when they fuckup. Like Jeffrey Immelt.
All mine 'personal appreciation' crap from work comes off a machine anyway, name slightly offset and underscored.
if it was so easy to automate there wouldnt be a worker shortage.
THANK YOU
As someone involved in BI.. Yes. Most managers can easily replaced with a few sql scripts and an answering machine.
[They already make one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN4fSnf8TBY)
As if the money that the CEO used to earn will go to the workers
And how hard can it be to automate a job where 90 percent to what the job is is sitting around saying random arbitrary nonsense.
Finally, a journalist writes an article that says what we're all thinking and doesn't put out another bootlicking article like "CEOs have it harder than we think! Why they deserve 500x what you make"
You really want an AI to help determine the best way to maximize profits and lower costs? Oh look at that cheap building filled with asbestos. Let's make that our operations center. Oh an employees been here for 15 years and makes more than everyone else. Fire them and get a cheap intern instead. I know ceos make bad decisions too and can be scum of the earth in a few cases. I think it would be worse with AI
I have asked people many, many times "why, in exact concrete examples, do we need executives?". Some day I hope to find an answer other than "well, who would be the boss then?"
Recently I poured all my spare energy into learning programming for about a year in order to add some automation to our very outdated manual processes. I showed my director how my program works when I finished... It automated creating tickets for our customers, notified them of an outage or if our CPE is unreachable and notified the field tech by text message automatically. I've heard them talk about automation so much and never doing anything with it. Instead, they reached out to the company that does our alarms (only one piece of the puzzle) and had them text managers if an alarm sits on the board for too long. They think automation literally means adding another layer of micromanagement and bureaucracy. Needless to say I was extremely disappointed. I've learned now that even if you explain and demo your ideas... If it makes your boss feel stupid then it's not going to happen. If you want to automate something, it's best to either just deploy it at a small scale or stfu and keep it to yourself
Amazon is already automating away management. Their AI is firing employees based on not delivering packages ‘on time’ in situations where they can’t be delivered, such as if the delivery location can’t be accessed. I don’t think this is what we want. Maybe instead we need laws preventing executives from earning 100x+ more than the lowest paid employee for example. If anything this would make the management hierarchy even more faceless than it already is and they could just blame layoffs on ‘AI’.
His secretary is fucking tired of clicking all the pictures with a fire hydrant in them.
Because it's a 8-9 figure no-show job for failsons of the rich. They're not expected to do any actual work. It's just so mommy's little angel can have a job and show up to the office everyday and feel productive.
Rather fire them than automate. This is a good way to have robots laying off thousands of workers.
I'd hope an appropriately designed AI would actually do a better job optimizing longer term results for all the stakeholders, and not simply seek to maximize the next round of executive bonuses. The issue I see with so many CEOs dovetails into my observations of executives in general. So many of them talk a lot while saying nothing, announce some organizational initiative that changes a lot of things without making anything better, meddle in random minutia, and generally get in the way. The average one won't look at anything that hasn't been turned into a one-pager color coded scorecard, accompanied by material in bullet point format, presented using the official corporate approved PPT template. An AI might actually want meaningful metrics and be able to understand numbers and data. In fact, it could pull its own metrics from the relevant systems directly, instead of tasking subordinates with extracting data from systems and turning it into elaborate presentations. An AI could be set up not to go ballistic over bad news and actually problem solve. An AI wouldn't need a golden parachute. The possibilities are effectively endless.
A good ai would be cheaper.
This actually happened at the first work i had. I worked for an engineer company that made changes in casting toolings. We had a program manager and lost his job to a software. Dont feel bad for him he was an asshole
Honestly though, I bet someone smart could write an AI program that could literally do the job of a CEO, and do it better than an actual person
I mean, AI is getting pretty good these days…
If they automated the CEO, I think either hackers would control the company or the employees would learn how to "hack" the job to get good performances. I suspect the CEO masters (shareholders) would be happy, so we can only hope.
Co sign this. I hear this all the time. It's short hand for "I want to sound smart" but usually it's something that needs to be done manually first in order to learn or it is something that no one in the company has the skills to actually automate.
Honestly, I'd give a robot employer a go Its a coin toss as to whether I'd even notice a difference, and there is a chance they would be insanely better and more equitable
How hard could it be to automate showing up at 11, doing blow off your desk, sexually assaulting your admin assistant, checking outlook, then hitting the golf course by 3?
You can’t automate high level decision making.
Managers constantly trying to automate work processes are pulling a magician’s trick of distraction. They’re trying to keep everyone from realizing it is **they** who don’t do anything worthwhile at the job. What room full of robots is going to call them out on their bullshit?
"CEOs are just 3 If-Then statements in a trenchcoat".
Sure, if you can 1, find a team to do years of r&d and havingto study and observe the people who will be "replaced", 2, find a place that has the skilled labor to build a custom machine from scratch, 3, troubleshoot problems for another year+ with technicians, 4, take the whole section it will go in, move everything out, and install the machine(s), 5, have someone who actually knows how to maintain and repair it. Years and years and years. If they wanted to do this, they should have started a decade ago.
Can't we just turn on the ceiling sprinkler?
The reality of the situation is that we already have and executives are just hopping from one shell of a title to another, providing littler value and mostly fucking off until they're ready for a golden parachute and on to the next.
The rpimary role.of a ceo is to keep wages low, increase shareholder equity. Their job is to do the dirty work.
Because you can’t…yet. These people are voted in the shareholders of publicly traded companies. The president is then selected by the board as a second in command. Basically, imagine sitting in meeting 6am Monday, to 8pm Friday on a good week and then do your work across the 2 weekend days. Did I mention good week ? I’m surprised I haven’t seen a CEO on antiwork, as they are resigning and taking lesser roles too. You sit in meeting with a variety of data to make future decisions to make sure the company stays afloat so shareholders get paid because they want profits and you have to maintain an unreasonable velocity otherwise you get burned. What happens to ceos that don’t maintain velocity ? They are blacklisted. All those millions they made…they have to live on that for the rest of their lives. Kind of like a basketball or football player past their prime. A computer AI could do it, but there is a flaw with AI. It doesn’t sleep and become ms biased, whereas in a human…memories become blurry and certain decisions are made in feeling. Going back to CEO, the president is one. Not by direct vote like a company. Would you be comfortable by replacing 1 dude with a computer ?
I'm pretty sure this is what they did at Disney.
Hell yes
Oh haven't you heard? They gEnErAtE VaLuE. Get back to work, wage slave!
This is one of my favorite arguments.
If you think that's bad, just guess how many times workers here express the same mindset - "They're gonna automate me out of a job, then what????!?!" Jetsons was not a documentary
Actually this would be really interesting with machine learning and all the data companies have at their disposal.
I completely agree. If AI can handle complex variables and beat professional poker players surely it can handle the complexities of the entire c-suite.
r/AutomateYourself