They could save millions by that move
You must log in or register to comment.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
When somebody insists that the food they made is good and that you should have some but refuses to eat it themselves, you know that they’re lying and the food is shit.
21 daysoh hey, you were at the big family dinner last night.
it was my mother’s turn to cook and she didn’t eat anything. there was enough food, just it was really, really bad.
pro cooking tip for all y’all out there: never, and i do mean never, go into your spice cabinet and just grab seven random spices to season a dish. actually think about what you’re cooking.
she made rice with garam masala and cream of tartar, dill, garlic, basil. like what the fuck.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
It could’ve worked, but one doesn’t do such risky culinary experimentations when cooking for others.
or ASKS them whether they want to be a test mouth. doesn’t make it the whole damn meal.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
Are they eating it themselves?
Because, IMHO, it requires both conditions to apply.
- 20 days
CEOs do less for a company than the average worker. A company can run for a long time without a CEO, but get rid of your finance team, IT team, production team, or customer service team (all of which are much cheaper than a single CEO) and see how long your company lasts.
- billwashere@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
My theory is short term decisions are generally made much further down the decision hierarchy and the CEOs main job SHOULD be more long term vision and planning. Most companies, except for a few, make decisions based on what makes them the most money in the shortest term so in effect the CEO doesn’t do shit and likely could be replaced by an AI. I wouldn’t be surprised to find most CEOs at this point are just highly paid proxies asking AI what to do.
- rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish20 days
There are companies that work that way. In my experience, they either meddle in lower-level affairs themselves or command their department heads to do so on their behalf.
Part of that I AM THE VISION is super easy to corrupt into WHY ARE YOU SO SHORT SIGHTED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY
My last couple CEO’s have been S tier. They went out, brought in the investors, distributed the money downhill reasonably well.
I’ve worked with plenty who couldn’t keep their dicks out of the company minutiae, metaphorically or physically.
- 21 days
Same reason religions demand you tithe but refuse to pay taxes, even though they don’t deny Christ said, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s,” which is to say, fulfil your obligations to the government before fulfilling your obligations to God.
- 21 days
What part do you think is wild exactly? The rendering or the same reason bit?
That’s not what that verse means. It means leave government stuff to government and God centered stuff to God. He was differentiating between God and the government.
I love how there are so many meanings, and everyone believes theirs is the right one.
- 21 days
My dissertation chair wrote a book partially on this subject. He pointed out that the Qamranites (like John the Baptist) preached that everything in the holy land belonged to god and nothing belonged to caesar. In that vein, “render unto caesar that which is caesar’s and render unto god that which is god’s” translates to “fuck caesar”. Personally I have no dog in the fight, but this interpretation is a lot more fun.
- 20 days
Many people believing differently is different then there are many meanings
- jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish21 days
That’s certainly not a “wild understanding” as the other commenter describes it. I’ve heard that interpretation taught since I was a child to mean pay your taxes. And what are these religions telling you not to pay your taxes?
- 21 days
Lots of people are saying that AI isn’t that good, and that’s absolutely true.
To your question though, AI has been doing better at running companies than CEOs.
Who would’ve thought that the machine that’s great at making shit up and running with it would be good at the “job” of people that make shit up and run with it.
While AI is not good, people seem to have forgotten the fact that CEOs are also not good…and are complete idiots.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
It’s a great demonstration of how what modern CEOs are really good at is bullshit rather than management.
- 21 days
I keep reading “AI is better at doing … than the human” but I tried to code a simple HTML app and that fucker did a horrible job. I kept having to explain the same thing over and over and it kept giving me the wrong code. The company asked us to use this shit and I thought it would save me time… it took longer than if I just coded myself. For now my experience is not good
- 20 days
My exact experience as well. Tasks that need precision and accuracy it does not do well. We have to babysit it.
they’re typically sociopaths, narcissists, or both. other people hardly exist
- 21 days
I think you already know the answer because you asked the question.
The CEOs are the ones trying to convince everyone (investors really) that AI can replace humans to try to increase profits. That’s it.
LLMs/AI are fantastic tools, but that’s all they are. Just tools. The CEOs are selling the AI revolution fantasy.
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish21 days
They’re an entertainment technology, not a revolutionary business technology as they claim, so their maximum value is constrained by the boundaries of the entertainment market rather than being a significant fraction of the World’s Economy: basically they’ll at best have a Social Media Tech-sized Economic footprint, not an Industrial Revolution one.
However, that shit was sold to investors as an Economic Revolution and the investment footprint is proportional to that prospect and thus way bigger than it would be for “this will be as big as Social Media”, and by now all that’s left to try and keep that massive block of investment from crushing the far too narrow columnn or returns, is ever more desperate spinning of hopes and dreams fables.
- 21 days
If AI was anywhere close to that good, they wouldn’t be encouraging the masses to use it, they would be hoarding access for their own benefit.
- 21 days
Because you can’t scapegoat an AI when the business does something illegal.
interesting, if ai that good, why there is no company founded by ai? :D
- 20 days
This is starting in Argentina now.
*Not that I am saying AI is that good, just that we are in that shitty of a dystopia
- 20 days
Because it’s not legal but good old Peter Theil moved to South America and is lobbying for and buying politicians down their in South America to make it so.
To understand how fucked the United States is, H. Jeffries is Theil’s money whipped bitch already, and he owns the current United States VP, completely owns him, as in he is a Theil puppet, he would be nothing without Theil, just an author.
Poor people, farmers, middle class, millionaires all need to wake up. It’s not about pronouns and restrooms, it’s about end stage capitalism, a war against billionaire oligarchs raping us and our children. It’s like the 1930’s but way worse.
- 21 days
Been saying this for a year now. If they replace us, why not replace them? I was personally told it’s because the connections a CEO has. Well, if my CEO had connections my ESPP wouldn’t have lost 40% since buying it 2 years ago.
- 21 days
One of the weird things about ceos, in USA at least, is that one of their roles is to be the fall guy for the board if things go badly. If they screw up badly enough, it’s expected that they’ll find it hard to be hired as CEO elsewhere, which they use to justify outsize compensation plans. I’m not sure AI would fulfill that role, nor the schmoozing aspects
- 21 days
I’m my experience it’s pretty uncommon for a CEO to struggle finding a new position no matter what transpired at their previous company. Golden parachutes and failing upwards are way more common
