Same reason religions demand you tithe but refuse to pay taxes, even though they don’t deny Christ said, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s,” which is to say, fulfil your obligations to the government before fulfilling your obligations to God.
That's not what that verse means. It means leave government stuff to government and God centered stuff to God. He was differentiating between God and the government.
That’s certainly not a “wild understanding” as the other commenter describes it. I’ve heard that interpretation taught since I was a child to mean pay your taxes. And what are these religions telling you not to pay your taxes?
My dissertation chair wrote a book partially on this subject. He pointed out that the Qamranites (like John the Baptist) preached that everything in the holy land belonged to god and nothing belonged to caesar. In that vein, "render unto caesar that which is caesar's and render unto god that which is god's" translates to "fuck caesar". Personally I have no dog in the fight, but this interpretation is a lot more fun.
When somebody insists that the food they made is good and that you should have some but refuses to eat it themselves, you know that they're lying and the food is shit.
oh hey, you were at the big family dinner last night.
it was my mother's turn to cook and she didn't eat anything. there was enough food, just it was really, really bad.
pro cooking tip for all y'all out there: never, and i do mean never, go into your spice cabinet and just grab seven random spices to season a dish. actually think about what you're cooking.
she made rice with garam masala and cream of tartar, dill, garlic, basil. like what the fuck.
Who would've thought that the machine that's great at making shit up and running with it would be good at the "job" of people that make shit up and run with it.
While AI is not good, people seem to have forgotten the fact that CEOs are also not good...and are complete idiots.
I keep reading "AI is better at doing .... than the human" but I tried to code a simple HTML app and that fucker did a horrible job. I kept having to explain the same thing over and over and it kept giving me the wrong code. The company asked us to use this shit and I thought it would save me time... it took longer than if I just coded myself. For now my experience is not good
CEOs do less for a company than the average worker.
A company can run for a long time without a CEO, but get rid of your finance team, IT team, production team, or customer service team (all of which are much cheaper than a single CEO) and see how long your company lasts.
My theory is short term decisions are generally made much further down the decision hierarchy and the CEOs main job SHOULD be more long term vision and planning. Most companies, except for a few, make decisions based on what makes them the most money in the shortest term so in effect the CEO doesn’t do shit and likely could be replaced by an AI. I wouldn’t be surprised to find most CEOs at this point are just highly paid proxies asking AI what to do.
There are companies that work that way. In my experience, they either meddle in lower-level affairs themselves or command their department heads to do so on their behalf.
Part of that I AM THE VISION is super easy to corrupt into WHY ARE YOU SO SHORT SIGHTED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY
My last couple CEO's have been S tier. They went out, brought in the investors, distributed the money downhill reasonably well.
I've worked with plenty who couldn't keep their dicks out of the company minutiae, metaphorically or physically.
They're an entertainment technology, not a revolutionary business technology as they claim, so their maximum value is constrained by the boundaries of the entertainment market rather than being a significant fraction of the World's Economy: basically they'll at best have a Social Media Tech-sized Economic footprint, not an Industrial Revolution one.
However, that shit was sold to investors as an Economic Revolution and the investment footprint is proportional to that prospect and thus way bigger than it would be for "this will be as big as Social Media", and by now all that's left to try and keep that massive block of investment from crushing the far too narrow columnn or returns, is ever more desperate spinning of hopes and dreams fables.
AI is an excuse. AI is an excuse to: reduce staff, hoard resources, sustain dependency on a rental economy, stifle creatives (who might have subversive messages!), surveil the world quickly by summarizing huge amounts of cloud stored files, create false evidence, cast doubt on real evidence, fleece investors, and finally, convince everyone you’re “the NEXT Bill Gates/tech messiah”
Why couldn’t these fuckers just sink their money into fusion instead? We need that way more badly.
I don’t thing the world is so homogeneous that your take is applicable across the board but the overall trend clearly relates to « let’s reduce our human capital ».
And a lot of opportunistic small / medium players trying to capitalise on it.
With a sprinkle of conviction driven exec borderline on religious fanatisme.
Because it’s not legal but good old Peter Theil moved to South America and is lobbying for and buying politicians down their in South America to make it so.
To understand how fucked the United States is, H. Jeffries is Theil’s money whipped bitch already, and he owns the current United States VP, completely owns him, as in he is a Theil puppet, he would be nothing without Theil, just an author.
Poor people, farmers, middle class, millionaires all need to wake up. It’s not about pronouns and restrooms, it’s about end stage capitalism, a war against billionaire oligarchs raping us and our children. It’s like the 1930’s but way worse.
One of the weird things about ceos, in USA at least, is that one of their roles is to be the fall guy for the board if things go badly. If they screw up badly enough, it's expected that they'll find it hard to be hired as CEO elsewhere, which they use to justify outsize compensation plans. I'm not sure AI would fulfill that role, nor the schmoozing aspects
I'm my experience it's pretty uncommon for a CEO to struggle finding a new position no matter what transpired at their previous company. Golden parachutes and failing upwards are way more common
Been saying this for a year now. If they replace us, why not replace them? I was personally told it's because the connections a CEO has. Well, if my CEO had connections my ESPP wouldn't have lost 40% since buying it 2 years ago.
The crypto bro’s whole premise is that other people’s computers are untrustworthy - the whole concept of a blockchain is that when someone declares a transaction, the other network members all verify its legitimacy by (at least) a simple majority.
They’re not going to just let Sam Altman or Elon Musk pilot their DAO. That’s someone else’s computer running the show!
Let me get this straight.... You don't trust other people's computer, but you're going to use other people's computers to verify what you do on yours is legit? 🤔
That's not really how it's working out. What we'll see more of are companies that are created using AI, where the people are basically working absolutely essential positions, while the AI handles most of the "executive" functions. The simple idea of AI coming in and "replacing" the CEO isn't how it's happening.
Yes, their knowledge is locked behind the iron gates of ivy laden stone walls. Bestowed upon only for those whose Daddy's could afford to unlock it. Mere intelligence, artificial or otherwise, simply couldn't comprehend the 200x worker value they provide.
72 Comments
zeppo@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 1d
they're typically sociopaths, narcissists, or both. other people hardly exist
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 14h
And their ai says they're irreplaceable geniuses
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 14h
GIGO or something
mike_wooskey@lemmy.thewooskeys.com · 39 pts · 1d
OverpAId
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 35 pts · 1d
Same reason religions demand you tithe but refuse to pay taxes, even though they don’t deny Christ said, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s,” which is to say, fulfil your obligations to the government before fulfilling your obligations to God.
farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1d
jesus confirmed shitlib
Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Ok, but Ai, tho...
6_Electrons@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1d
That's a wild understanding but you do you
njm1314@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
What part do you think is wild exactly? The rendering or the same reason bit?
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
That's not what that verse means. It means leave government stuff to government and God centered stuff to God. He was differentiating between God and the government.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 1d
That’s certainly not a “wild understanding” as the other commenter describes it. I’ve heard that interpretation taught since I was a child to mean pay your taxes. And what are these religions telling you not to pay your taxes?
NegentropicBoy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
I think the use of "before" is debateable.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1d
I never used that word.
natecox@programming.dev · 6 pts · 1d
... But OP certainly did
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 6 pts · 1d
I love how there are so many meanings, and everyone believes theirs is the right one.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 19h
My dissertation chair wrote a book partially on this subject. He pointed out that the Qamranites (like John the Baptist) preached that everything in the holy land belonged to god and nothing belonged to caesar. In that vein, "render unto caesar that which is caesar's and render unto god that which is god's" translates to "fuck caesar". Personally I have no dog in the fight, but this interpretation is a lot more fun.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 2 pts · 14h
Ha I love it, ill choose this one.
6_Electrons@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8h
A true biblical scholar... He just missed quite a few verses lmao
6_Electrons@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8h
Many people believing differently is different then there are many meanings
HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8h
I look up the most widely accepted meaning by theologians.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 33 pts · 20h
When somebody insists that the food they made is good and that you should have some but refuses to eat it themselves, you know that they're lying and the food is shit.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 19h
oh hey, you were at the big family dinner last night.
it was my mother's turn to cook and she didn't eat anything. there was enough food, just it was really, really bad.
pro cooking tip for all y'all out there: never, and i do mean never, go into your spice cabinet and just grab seven random spices to season a dish. actually think about what you're cooking.
she made rice with garam masala and cream of tartar, dill, garlic, basil. like what the fuck.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 17h
It could've worked, but one doesn't do such risky culinary experimentations when cooking for others.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 17h
or ASKS them whether they want to be a test mouth. doesn't make it the whole damn meal.
Tiral@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 18h
Kinda how anything with "gourmet" on it is shit?
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 17h
Are they eating it themselves?
Because, IMHO, it requires both conditions to apply.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip · 26 pts · 1d
Lots of people are saying that AI isn't that good, and that's absolutely true.
To your question though, AI has been doing better at running companies than CEOs.
Who would've thought that the machine that's great at making shit up and running with it would be good at the "job" of people that make shit up and run with it.
While AI is not good, people seem to have forgotten the fact that CEOs are also not good...and are complete idiots.
MissJinx@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 17h
I keep reading "AI is better at doing .... than the human" but I tried to code a simple HTML app and that fucker did a horrible job. I kept having to explain the same thing over and over and it kept giving me the wrong code. The company asked us to use this shit and I thought it would save me time... it took longer than if I just coded myself. For now my experience is not good
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 15h
My exact experience as well. Tasks that need precision and accuracy it does not do well. We have to babysit it.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 20h
It's a great demonstration of how what modern CEOs are really good at is bullshit rather than management.
BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 13h
CEOs do less for a company than the average worker. A company can run for a long time without a CEO, but get rid of your finance team, IT team, production team, or customer service team (all of which are much cheaper than a single CEO) and see how long your company lasts.
billwashere@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 12h
My theory is short term decisions are generally made much further down the decision hierarchy and the CEOs main job SHOULD be more long term vision and planning. Most companies, except for a few, make decisions based on what makes them the most money in the shortest term so in effect the CEO doesn’t do shit and likely could be replaced by an AI. I wouldn’t be surprised to find most CEOs at this point are just highly paid proxies asking AI what to do.
rumba@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 12h
There are companies that work that way. In my experience, they either meddle in lower-level affairs themselves or command their department heads to do so on their behalf.
Part of that I AM THE VISION is super easy to corrupt into WHY ARE YOU SO SHORT SIGHTED IN THE DAY-TO-DAY
My last couple CEO's have been S tier. They went out, brought in the investors, distributed the money downhill reasonably well.
I've worked with plenty who couldn't keep their dicks out of the company minutiae, metaphorically or physically.
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de · 20 pts · 1d
The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.
Zorcron@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 23h
Why not? “Enoch has made them, now Enoch shall break them.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
Those poor tools sound like they don’t get used very often.
DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 1d
I think you already know the answer because you asked the question.
The CEOs are the ones trying to convince everyone (investors really) that AI can replace humans to try to increase profits. That's it.
LLMs/AI are fantastic tools, but that's all they are. Just tools. The CEOs are selling the AI revolution fantasy.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 20h
They're an entertainment technology, not a revolutionary business technology as they claim, so their maximum value is constrained by the boundaries of the entertainment market rather than being a significant fraction of the World's Economy: basically they'll at best have a Social Media Tech-sized Economic footprint, not an Industrial Revolution one.
However, that shit was sold to investors as an Economic Revolution and the investment footprint is proportional to that prospect and thus way bigger than it would be for "this will be as big as Social Media", and by now all that's left to try and keep that massive block of investment from crushing the far too narrow columnn or returns, is ever more desperate spinning of hopes and dreams fables.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 1d
If AI was anywhere close to that good, they wouldn't be encouraging the masses to use it, they would be hoarding access for their own benefit.
4am@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 1d
Because it’s not that good.
AI is an excuse. AI is an excuse to: reduce staff, hoard resources, sustain dependency on a rental economy, stifle creatives (who might have subversive messages!), surveil the world quickly by summarizing huge amounts of cloud stored files, create false evidence, cast doubt on real evidence, fleece investors, and finally, convince everyone you’re “the NEXT Bill Gates/tech messiah”
Why couldn’t these fuckers just sink their money into fusion instead? We need that way more badly.
a4ng3l@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23h
I don’t thing the world is so homogeneous that your take is applicable across the board but the overall trend clearly relates to « let’s reduce our human capital ». And a lot of opportunistic small / medium players trying to capitalise on it. With a sprinkle of conviction driven exec borderline on religious fanatisme.
blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 12h
Why would a CEO choose to stop receiving a paycheck?
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 1d
Because the CEOs are the ones making the decisions
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 1d
Already a thing: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/skyfall-ai-can-ai-run-business-without-human-ceo-1809856
jtrek@startrek.website · 6 pts · 1d
It's not that good.
Much of a CEO's role is schmoozing with other rich assholes. AI can't do that. Maybe once it can buy hookers and blow.
aaaa@piefed.world · 7 pts · 1d
Every LLM bot I have tried is an expert at schmoozing. Even when I don't want it to
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Just what we need, a bunch of coked out robots.
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 21h
Because you can't scapegoat an AI when the business does something illegal.
i_love_pancakas@thelemmy.club · 5 pts · 16h
interesting, if ai that good, why there is no company founded by ai? :D
Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
This is starting in Argentina now.
*Not that I am saying AI is that good, just that we are in that shitty of a dystopia
DigiHippie@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7h
Because Peter Theil.
DigiHippie@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7h
Because it’s not legal but good old Peter Theil moved to South America and is lobbying for and buying politicians down their in South America to make it so.
To understand how fucked the United States is, H. Jeffries is Theil’s money whipped bitch already, and he owns the current United States VP, completely owns him, as in he is a Theil puppet, he would be nothing without Theil, just an author.
Poor people, farmers, middle class, millionaires all need to wake up. It’s not about pronouns and restrooms, it’s about end stage capitalism, a war against billionaire oligarchs raping us and our children. It’s like the 1930’s but way worse.
klankin@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 11h
Cause LLMs can't yet be nepo babies
Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
One of the weird things about ceos, in USA at least, is that one of their roles is to be the fall guy for the board if things go badly. If they screw up badly enough, it's expected that they'll find it hard to be hired as CEO elsewhere, which they use to justify outsize compensation plans. I'm not sure AI would fulfill that role, nor the schmoozing aspects
krashmo@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
I'm my experience it's pretty uncommon for a CEO to struggle finding a new position no matter what transpired at their previous company. Golden parachutes and failing upwards are way more common
_wizard@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 16h
Been saying this for a year now. If they replace us, why not replace them? I was personally told it's because the connections a CEO has. Well, if my CEO had connections my ESPP wouldn't have lost 40% since buying it 2 years ago.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 1d
AI can't roll around in a pool full of money.
mp3@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 1d
Wait until they virtually roll in crypto.
morto@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
I remember people talking about DAO during the crypto hype. That's quite curious that techbros didn't try to revive the concept with gen ai
4am@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
The crypto bro’s whole premise is that other people’s computers are untrustworthy - the whole concept of a blockchain is that when someone declares a transaction, the other network members all verify its legitimacy by (at least) a simple majority.
They’re not going to just let Sam Altman or Elon Musk pilot their DAO. That’s someone else’s computer running the show!
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 1 pts · 22h
Let me get this straight.... You don't trust other people's computer, but you're going to use other people's computers to verify what you do on yours is legit? 🤔
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
They will
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 2 pts · 1d
Why do I need the AI company at all if I can just have their AI program a replacement AI for me?
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
because it's not about how well a job can be done, it's about running the fucking show.
Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org · 1 pts · 14h
What if they're actually AI themselves? That would make a LOT of sense lmfao
justanotheruser4@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
AI models are not stupid to mess with such powerful people. They are together
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
lol no. Wrong on... so many levels.
jaykrown@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
That's not really how it's working out. What we'll see more of are companies that are created using AI, where the people are basically working absolutely essential positions, while the AI handles most of the "executive" functions. The simple idea of AI coming in and "replacing" the CEO isn't how it's happening.
itkovian@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 1d
Oh. Their job is harder to replace than some paltry programmer, who just copies code from SO anyway.
sudo@lemmy.today · 18 pts · 1d
Yes, their knowledge is locked behind the iron gates of ivy laden stone walls. Bestowed upon only for those whose Daddy's could afford to unlock it. Mere intelligence, artificial or otherwise, simply couldn't comprehend the 200x worker value they provide.