Right on. I’d take an AI CEO trained by reading “the mythical man month”, “Peopleware”, “out of the crisis”, “drive” over some of the real CEOs I’ve worked under, any day of the week and Sundays too.
Too much power in one individual, they start believing they know everything and are never wrong.
But the role of steering a company is needed, that's why I think it's perfect for AI. Developers and VCs write the instructions together and AI runs the company.
What does "run the company" mean? LLMs can generate code, generating code directly replaces developers work. But how would it run a company? I think LLMs can help anyone be a good enough CEO but still need to be a real person. Now the question is: is a developer a better CEO than a CEO can code using LLM? I think we are going to see many 1-person companies going forward.
How thorough a model do you have of what a CEO does, both high level and day to day? Aside from riding PJs around as executives do, what do they actually do? How much of that is LLM-able?
Is that substantively different than quitting and starting a much smaller company that competes with your previous one? Seems easier to just let the CEO and shareholders go down with the ship and move all the talent to the new one.
You can just run the codebase through an LLM to cleanse it of any IP entanglements. Open source it under a pseudonym if you're worried about retribution. Whatever parts of the business that doesn't cover... well those are the people you need to hire from the old one.
> First AI came for the artists and I said nothing because I was not an artist...
Depends on the CEO. Let’s take a mythical example of a person who is the CEO of 5 companies, who posts on social media all day every day and ruins value of the companies they “run” and panders to angry little men with daddy issues just like themselves? That mythical CEO is probably easily replaced by just about anyone, including AI.
It was always a pyramid game, because when one person has everything it stops making sense. At least this way, we get good software out of it. Replacing developers has to be the worst idea ever.
Yeah, but that's still missing the multiplied creativity we get from working in teams. Besides, we all know it's not going to work very well long term.
Seems like a more reasonable path to me; more logic and less bullshit at the core, keep human creativity.
The director from the Travelers series, basically.
Just consider the potential savings...