| |
| ▲ | Loughla 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know it's a joke, but you're not correct. While chatbots are very good at finding interesting data points they're not good at understanding what makes for interesting data points. Good executives function in the background of the day to day work for most people. Good executives stand out when they set clear directions and can identify what information they need, at the top, to change direction or modify scope or whatever. They don't impact the actual work happening every single day so they just blend in. They impact the work at the entire organization, which will change the day to day, but usually for the better. The problem is there are very, very, very few good executives. Most that I've interacted with are either narcissistic, lazy, incompetent, or a combination thereof. In the decades and decades of my professional career, I've worked with one truly good executive leader. He was phenomenal, and guided the organization I was with through some very tough times (layoffs, then covid, then a restructure). That's one of several hundred. | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | cowlevel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The other several hundred minus one were doing pretty well though, weren't they? Sounds like the average executive can be replaced by AI. | |
| ▲ | DonHopkins 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The problem is there are very, very, very few good executives. Most that I've interacted with are either narcissistic, lazy, incompetent, or a combination thereof. His point is that narcissistic, lazy, incompetent people are easy to replace with AI. In other words, most executives and grant writers. Why are you framing it like you disagree? He is correct. Also a point about style for "someone who excels at technical writing": an LLM could help you come up with stronger, more evocative wording than very, very, and very. I try to use words like "very" zero times in a row, because there's always a better word that actually adds something more insightful to the description than a generic "very" or three. Using "very" three times in a row is like eating a whole box of unflavored starch packing peanuts. | | |
| ▲ | Loughla an hour ago | parent [-] | | I guess maybe I disagree in terms of the good executives and wish for a world where that was the norm, and those character traits were sought after by companies instead of narcissism, etc. For your second paragraph: I'm not looking for a job on here and I'm not writing technically. I'm posting on an Internet forum and using repetition to emphasize a point. Sort of like changing the voice I use for the forum or audience. That sort of thing is very, very common. | | |
| ▲ | oenton an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I have to agree with DonHopkins. Your GP comment reads like needless steelmanning or playing devil’s advocate. It’s noise. I much prefer discourse where you say what you mean and mean what you say. | |
| ▲ | DonHopkins an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You could try technically rewriting your profile to sound less pretentious, and remove the work solicitation if you're not actually looking for a job, or simply write better posts that live up to the self-aggrandizing promises you make in your profile. And when you violently agree with somebody, don't tell them they're incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
