AI can’t replace genuine 1:1 human interaction. We’re social animals, and a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human.
But how much of a CEO’s job requires 1:1 human interaction? If I as a software developer am to be told I can do fine without human meetings to discuss product requirements, why can’t CEOs?
If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings they’re going to be surprised how much laughter they get in return.
> If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings
Oh hell no. That's not where the value lies.
You can't send an AI CEO as part of a trade delegation. Sending an AI to close the deal doesn't tell the other party that you're there to make sure the deal happens. That's the sort of thing a human CEO does that an AI can't.
No, that’s why there is a concern. They’re replacing human relationships with things that superficially look like human relationships but have no depth.
No, that's other people being concerned, it's not the people in the relationships that are concerned.
The position was "a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human" and quite clearly to some people it can, so the statement is false.
A CEO's job isn't the one that everybody here apparently thinks it is. A CEO's job is networking, marketing and PR. They get paid the way they do because they can get into the rooms they need to get into to build the inter-business relationships they need to build.
That's right. Obviously they need to build a network before they become a CEO, but that's what Ivy League's, family connections, and exclusive private schools are for.
Yes, but the way you're phrasing it suggests there's something getting lost in translation. A CEO's job is to perform the role of CEO: when the head of engineering wants to zig, and the head of marketing wants to zag, they need to choose between the two in a way that leaves no question about what the decision is or whether the direction should be followed. I don't think people would obey an AI oracle in that way, I certainly wouldn't.
AI can’t replace genuine 1:1 human interaction. We’re social animals, and a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human.
But how much of a CEO’s job requires 1:1 human interaction? If I as a software developer am to be told I can do fine without human meetings to discuss product requirements, why can’t CEOs?
If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings they’re going to be surprised how much laughter they get in return.
> If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings
Oh hell no. That's not where the value lies.
You can't send an AI CEO as part of a trade delegation. Sending an AI to close the deal doesn't tell the other party that you're there to make sure the deal happens. That's the sort of thing a human CEO does that an AI can't.
> Sending an AI to close the deal doesn't tell the other party that you're there to make sure the deal happens
But they’ll have an AI CEO too. They will discuss and make a deal.
>But how much of a CEO’s job requires 1:1 human interaction?
Basically all of it
> If I as a software developer am to be told I can do fine without human meetings to discuss product requirements, why can’t CEOs?
Because your job is different than a CEO (and it's also not true for your job)
> a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human.
If this were so obviously true there wouldn't be nearly so much concern about people having relationships with AIs.
No, that’s why there is a concern. They’re replacing human relationships with things that superficially look like human relationships but have no depth.
No, that's other people being concerned, it's not the people in the relationships that are concerned.
The position was "a machine pretending to be a human can’t engender the same emotional response as another human" and quite clearly to some people it can, so the statement is false.
It CAN replace all that corporate lingo bullshit. And that would be great.
the AI and your GF have things you desire that are irreplaceable: social status.
[dead]
[dead]
A CEO's job isn't the one that everybody here apparently thinks it is. A CEO's job is networking, marketing and PR. They get paid the way they do because they can get into the rooms they need to get into to build the inter-business relationships they need to build.
So you’re saying that what makes them able to be a CEO is that they became a CEO
That's right. Obviously they need to build a network before they become a CEO, but that's what Ivy League's, family connections, and exclusive private schools are for.
Yes, but the way you're phrasing it suggests there's something getting lost in translation. A CEO's job is to perform the role of CEO: when the head of engineering wants to zig, and the head of marketing wants to zag, they need to choose between the two in a way that leaves no question about what the decision is or whether the direction should be followed. I don't think people would obey an AI oracle in that way, I certainly wouldn't.
>I don't think people would obey an AI oracle in that way
You clearly haven't encountered the large group of people who trust hallucinated LLM output more than their coworkers.
When they like the output, sure. I've never had any luck convincing them to change course by showing that I can prompt an LLM to say something else.
Hire a pharma rep to do those public-facing parts of the job, hand over strategy and analysis to the bot.