Some of my coworkers will complain that management is short-sighted for trying to automate programming work they don't understand then immediately suggest we automate management because nobody knows what they do all day.

Maybe they're right, maybe not, but it is ironic.

▲

bee_rider an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They are currently experimenting with replacing engineers with LLMs, so it would at least be interesting to try the flipped experiment.

It seems like, at least for tasks like distilling the work done at lower levels and passing it up the management tree, LLMs should be good at that. Maybe they could take out some levels at least.

And they can be programmed to be 100% selfless and on-mission: no turf battles or other internal politics. Everybody’s job involves office politics of course, but my gut says management has a lot more of it than engineering, so zeroing that out could be more significant.

▲

harikb an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Aren't LLM's mostly overconfident? If they are independent entities/agents, they may be tempted to try to sabotage the less performing teams to take over their projects - just like in human world.

▲

robotresearcher an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The models are trained on data that encodes hundreds or thousands of years of turf battles and office politics. The model is shaped by the script of ‘Succession’, the history of the English monarchy and the Chinese Communist Party, and the biographies of Steve Jobs and Alexander Hamilton…

The models don’t generate what’s right and good: they generate what people are likely to generate.

	▲	bee_rider 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They managed to fine-tune models to be good at math and coding, despite the vast majority of humanity being awful at those… I dunno. You are probably right. But it’d be an experiment. It wouldn’t be an experiment if it was a sure thing.

▲

superjan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Careful what you wish for…