If $100k proves that CEO is the most replaceable job ever, I’ll allow it.

notahacker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It does fit a pattern where the general tone on HN has gone from "AI is going to eat the world of retail jobs and people like us are going to be the biggest beneficiaries" to "turns out that turning JIRA tickets into syntax which compiles might actually be something LLMs are better suited to than upselling fries and wiping tables" :)

▲

Ylpertnodi 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> CEO When things go shitty, who else would deserve a golden parachute? Respect the position, people, not the person. Or the multi-million dollar compensation.

▲

krapp 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The position doesn't get a golden parachute, the person does. If you're CEO when things go shitty you shouldn't get anything more than your bottom-line employee would, which is to say you should just be unceremoniously kicked to the curb.

▲

astrange 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You need a good CEO when things are going bad, because without one they'll go even worse. You still want to make payroll and can't just randomly fire people.

(Also, if you own a failed company you're responsible for cleanup tasks for years afterward.)

▲

krapp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>You still want to make payroll and can't just randomly fire people.

In the US you can.

>Also, if you own a failed company you're responsible for cleanup tasks for years afterward.

But we're talking about golden parachutes, where a CEO screws up the company and gets fired with a multi-million dollar raise. This is Hacker News, and the pro-business narrative is strong here, but in reality CEOs rarely suffer any meaningful risk or consequence for failure (unless it involves jail time, and even then they aren't doing hard time) they just wind up slightly less rich than when they succeed.

I don't care how good a CEO is, that isn't justifiable. Certainly not in a country where people can get laid off with an email and lose their access to healthcare on the whim of anyone above them in the power hierarchy.

	▲	astrange 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> In the US you can. Depends on the state I think. It's not Europe or Japan level. At my employer it's very difficult to fire people for performance reasons even if as a manager you might want to. > This is Hacker News, and the pro-business narrative is strong here, I haven't seen such a narrative in years. Interest rates are too high to do startups unless it's AI after all. HN is mostly the same folk economics content as other forums, where all problems in the world are caused by "profits" accruing to "corporations". (Mostly problems are caused by other things than that.)

▲

codemog 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you kidding me? Who’s going to align synergy and hold accountable KPIs and vision plan the 3rd quarter and.. and.. other MBA talk. Certainly AI could never.

▲

pocksuppet 8 hours ago | parent [-]

large language models are great at language tasks like "bullshittify this message"

	▲	lamasery 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm noticing one major early effect of them is making extensive, visually consistent, very impressive slide decks accessible to individual workers who need to actually do real work and wouldn't ordinarily have time to make those. The result is an explosion of pretty bullshit-heavy documents flying around our org, which management loves but which is definitely, so far, net-harmful to productivity. This comes out if you start asking questions about the documents. "Which of a couple reasonable senses of [term] do you mean, here?" they'll stumble because that was just something the LLM pulled out of the probability-cluster they'd steered it to and they left in because it seemed right-ish, not because they'd actually thought about it and put it there on purpose. They're basically reading it for the first time right alongside you, LOL. Wonderful. So LLM. Much productivity. Wow. Anyway, since a lot of what managers and execs do is making those kinds of diagrams and tables and such in slide decks, and their own self-marketing within the company is heavily tied to those, I expect they see this great aid to selfishly productive but company un-productive activity as a sign these things will be at least as big a boon to real work. Probably why they still haven't figured out how wrong that is. I suppose they're gonna need a real kick in the ass before they figure out that being good at squeezing their couple novel elements into a big, pretty, standardized, custom-styled but standards-conforming diagram padded out with statistical-likelihoods doesn't translate to being similarly good at everything.