It's absolutely replacing their jobs, but not their positions. They use it extensively to create all the paperwork, communications, emails, translations... and they work fine for these tasks so they think it's equally useful for everything.
I believe that it's pretty close to the article thesis, just more prosaic.
And yes, the AI works great for some programming tasks, just not for everything or completely unsupervised.
I’m in a heavily-regulated sector, fully remote. If left alone, our junior exec:
- needs a digest of where chat activity is hottest. Maybe he lurks, occasionally he gets into conversations about what’s going on in another department.
- needs some warning if the Microsoft systems are under attack or strain. The Linux systems have not needed attention; the jargon is unfamiliar.
- occasionally brings up hypothetical radical changes in strategy. I think of these as multivariate tests. Maybe I reply, “Plenty of Kubenetes developers available right now” might communicate that some small team would be ahead of us on some solved problem.
I’m surprised that:
- he has no concern that competition even exists. No awareness that our competition demos at conferences; why they’d choose to spend time that way.
- no interest in the big accounts we don’t have. If it would take a big lift, what would engineering need? If it would take a small lift, what non-engineering is blocking? No interest.
- person-to-person networking is effective at all. I just can’t imagine any value in two execs meeting without hours of preparation.
I’ve seen BI tooling around each of these. I wonder if a daily “facts of our department” slide to begin each meeting, if that would replace/augment 51% of visible exec.
It’s not a mystery… I can tell you what I do most days, and probably 80% of it is communication. An AI could do that. That communication is to learn what is going on up, down, and across the org. I mostly want to make sure we aren’t doing redundant work — though sometimes that is useful, and making sure timelines aren’t slipping. Oh, and dealing with conflicts.
The other 20% is writing: policies, SOPs, audits, grants, performance reviews, etc.
I could probably automate over half my job in n8n in a weekend… hmm… actually might try that.
No, execs aren't owners, but... if an exec can deliver the same or better results with fewer employees, aren't they a better exec? And if so, aren't they worth more money?
(Yeah, I know, there's lots of instances of execs who got paid huge amounts of money and delivered abysmal results...)
Boards aren't exactly dummies either. If they can see their exec isn't necessary I think they'd make moves to eliminate the positions. But that's in a world where reality meets the hype, and I don't think we're there yet. It gets weirder to think that then anyone with access to the tools and some capital could reasonably make their own company to battle it out with the big guys, but that future is a lot hazier.
Not really, not unless you're C-suite or your org size is in the thousands. When Google's looking for a VP to run a 100 person department, they care about your experience running similarly sized orgs as much as they care about your ability to achieve business results. People make fun of empire building but it's absolutely rational on the individual level.
I'm not sure that is the case in all sports. For example in golf, the top women golfers on LPGA tour in distance are only about as long as the shortest men on PGA tour off the tee, about 290 yards average. However, the women are generally vastly more accurate than the men in pretty much every distance tee to green. Their swing is just a different style of swing afforded by female anatomy. It is more hip driven, "textbook," in fact they have higher hip speed than men who rely more on hand speed.
Now imagine a pro golfer who was born female with those anatomical advantages for golf flexibility, and is now taking testosterone for power, ostensibly to identify as male. Not only do they have the anatomy advantage, they now have the power. They would probably dominate pro golf overall, both sides of the game I expect, whichever one they choose to compete in.
Trans women who have been on hormone therapy for at least a year have no overall advantage over cis women in most real, existing competitive sports. They have disadvantages in some of the most widely-sports-relevant capacities—compared to cis women—and small advantages in a couple of isolated abilities (grip strength).
They also have advantages in traits that across the population correlate positively with some broadly-sports-relevant capacities (e.g., lean body mass, both absolutely and as a share of total body mass, lung volume), but the actual sports-relevant capacities these correlate with on a population level (strength, endurance, etc.) they don't have an advantage on. There are studies that have detailed some of the low-level reasons for this with regard to oxygen use and other factors.
Are countries within the EU sovereign, or is the EU sovereign? This is a sincere question. I googled for the official answer, which is that member countries are sovereign, but in terms of realpolitik?
> Are countries within the EU sovereign, or is the EU sovereign?
They’re both sovereign. When a king signs a treaty binding them in some way, they give up some sovereignty. But they don’t usually cease being sovereign.
The EU can punish or withhold benefits at will from misbehaving states. Sovereignty isn't the issue when you are locked onto the teat with superglue; if the cow witholds that precious milk you will starve, sovereign or not.
Man, I broadly agree with you about this type of person, but it makes me cringe that you say "this creature" and use the dog metaphor. He sucks but he's a human.
You are, of course, under no obligation to capitulate to my discomfort, but I figured it was worth commenting.
Sure they are human and their actions are part of human behaviour. Having said that I don't hold with language policing so I just use the terms which best describe their behaviour without trying to tie myself into knots about who might be offended by my word choice. If they dislike being talked about in this way they can just cease behaving in ways which make people talk about them in this way. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Rote learning isn't the be-all-end-all of education, but it's actually very important. You can't think anything interesting without knowing stuff to think about. Facts are important. Memorization is important.
The problem comes when rote learning actually is the be-all-end-all. Too many Asian students experience rote learning without any focus on actual learning. Our job used to be regurgitating paragraphs from textbooks, exactly as they were, into our exam papers. In classrooms, we were told that war happened in year X, but there was no discussion and analysis as to actual reasons, the milieu at the time, and the understanding and takeaway from that piece of history.
Facts and memorization are important, but they need to be in service to actual learning and understanding.
More of "because you are a continuous chemical reaction that started 4 billion years ago". A bunch of legacy crap gets left around from the time before higher order thought when the brain - muscle interactivity was just based on feelings.
If we had all those animals, especially those around the time of the cambrian explosion to experiment on as they developed it would probably make more sense in the 'but it does' department. This is also why your math teacher wants you to show your work.
reply