> giving me three tasks to do each day

Based on what? How do you judge if those are the right things to work on? As a founder, your number 1 priority is essentially to manage that the company works towards the right thing, but it sounds like to me you're outsourcing that part to a LLM? How do you know what the "right track" is when the track is just what the LLM outlined for you?

That's awesome! In a similar boat, starting something new. Would you mind sharing what customizations you added to Hermes?

This is a fantastic idea and I'd like to add my voice to the choir asking you for more information :) Don't let us rebuild everything from scratch if we don't have to

That's more useful than a lot of actual bosses.

Would love to see how do you setup the agents, I'm not at the level of director but I think it would be good too for staff engineer to manage the office politics

People who think everything is a group vs group war want you to think this is a group vs group war.

The founders who become CEOs are generally the better ones. The ones that draw universal hatred are usually hired by the board of public companies, to enact unpopular measures to ensure shareholder returns, such as firing expensive developers to make room for cheap AI; or unfairly denying health care to policy holders (like Luigi's alleged victim); etc. The relatively rare heartless corporate CEO also receives disproportionate public attention compared to the more common founder->CEO.

> It’s like some caricature - like an attempt to draw an animal that has never been seen from a description

In my experience this is how HNers see a lot of roles or professions that are not software developer. Finance = Patrick Bateman, lawyer = Saul Goodman, etc.

Obviously there is simplification going on, but clearly somewhere between founder of a 5 person startup. And CEO of a public multi-national there is a line where they really are not much alike.

There are a few different scenarios that people fit into:

* Lack of focus and discipline: Good founder, huckster, good at sales but won't scale with the business when it needs to start focussing.

* Fearful and nervous: Might start a business but doesn't want to make the wrong decision and so stops the business from growing due to decisions not being made when they need making.

* Not a founder but got the role somewhere once, lacks genuine transferable skills. Might work OK in another business but more than likely just riding the existing success/failure of the new business and leaves after 1-2 years to "face a new challenge".

* The rarest of all. Has all the relevant skills, creative, outgoing, mission focused and makes hard decisions efficiently. Will do well in whatever business they are in but might not be very popular!

I dunno most CEOs I have been under of seem to work really hard and try to get stuff done in a sane manner, it is usually the middle management that fs up.

CEO is, of course, partly responsible for having that middle management in the first place. However if I were the CEO I don't even know how I would be able to smell the rats with the top-down view that CEOs have (they can't be in every meeting and decision making of their subordinates).

If you have the right underlings (or inherit them) you might actually not need to do anything at all and succeed. Then again if you have the wrong underlings (or inherit them) then your job is hella-difficult.

CEOs apparently don’t bother to share their calendars with ordinary workers, and in many of the times when they do interact with them it feels more like lip services, so it’s natural to assume that they don’t do much.

But in reality it must be a hugely difficult job. I can’t imagine dealing with so many humans myself.

Ooh, next do "MBAs" ;)

Goomba fallacy

Both exist. I’d imagine most HN commenters do not work for startup headed up by a founder. The majority work for larger companies where the CEO isn’t as hands on as a startup founder and is never seen in the workplace. I promise you there’s a reason the stereotype exists!

I mean, here the submission is about a CEO who fired the company to replace them with LLMs. That would have been a an HBO‘s Silicon Valley joke a few years ago

HN is reddit with terminal stage Dunning-Kruger, equally or even more insufferable about a number of subjects.

I think a founder and a CEO are two different animals entirely. The two roles couldn’t be any more different, they just happen to share a title.

This caricature that’s occurring could also be thanks to all the horrible CEOs being so visible to everyone.

One of my friend’s medium-size billion dollar-ish company with almost a thousand employees is run by a CEO who is currently in AI psychosis and has started regularly submitting pull requests and demanding they get reviewed as if he’s a member of the development team. He basically comes in with a wrecking ball to carefully planned work with his own daily inspirations that he demands teams far down the totem pole drop everything to work on.

This isn’t an animal that has never been seen, this is a real person that is acting a real fool and negatively impacting my real friend.

We have all been fed this narrative that CEO is the most demanding job in the corporate ladder. How does this CEO have time to be submitting pull requests?

Then you have people like Elon Musk who demonstrate categorically that it’s actually possible to be the CEO of multiple publicly traded companies at once. The fact that this is possible at all smashes the facade of the “impossibly busy CEO.”

Look at how many CEOs have other corporate engagements outside of their primary CEO job. How does Tim Cook have time to be a board member of Nike? How does Satya Nadella have time to be on the board of Starbucks and the University of Chicago?

Logically, if the CEO is such a rigorous job with grueling hours you shouldn’t be physically able to do it at two companies, be a board member for completely unrelated businesses, or run a philanthropic foundation on the side in your spare time.

Then we move on to the "rich guy toys."

How does Mark Zuckerberg have the time to utilize a $300 million yacht? If he's so busy why doesn't he just charter one on the rare occasion he has a week off? Isn't a boat a horrible place to be when you're a busy CEO who needs to constantly travel to company sites, industry and government engagements, and be in close communication with company leaders? Keep in mind, he has owned large scale yachts long before Starlink was a thing.

This is the kind of stuff the CEO of the largest social media company in the world has time for: multiple months of vacationing on his yacht with transponders turned off.

> His $300 million superyacht, Launchpad, has been sailing in stealth mode for the last three months, with its AIS (Automatic Identification System) turned off throughout the European holiday. That’s more than 90 days where the 388 feet long vessel is sailing blind in the busy waters of the Mediterranean.

> Zuckerberg is thoroughly enjoying his time on the newly acquired $300 million luxury vessel. Back in May, the billionaire celebrated his 40th birthday by flying to Panama on his private jet to board the Feadship-built megayacht. A month later, the Meta boss whisked his entire family away on Launchpad on a luxurious cruise to celebrate his father’s 70th birthday, which also coincided with Father’s Day.

https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/mark-zuckerberg-sailing...

https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/mark-zuckerberg-superya...

> nobody has a competitive advantage

This presupposes that a company's competitive advantage comes primarily from their CEO.

It also presupposes that success is zero sum and winner takes all, which isn't always the case (example: when you're building out a new market segment, it can be beneficial to have competitors that are also building it out).

Just don't put it in charge of a company making paper clips

You’re presuming here that CEOs cause companies to make profit instead of serving as a scapegoat for their often unavoidable market dynamics (at best).

reminds me of trading algorithms

Doesn't the incentive here, lead to privatizing the AI and possibly releasing a different product to the public - or at least with a delay? (not too unlike how the frontier labs work today).

You're describing the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall[1], which, I'm sorry, is a Marxist idea so it's automatically wrong.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...

I'm fully in favor of a social safety net (a proper UBI even), but the tax system should tax what we don't want / keep within bounds, and I think in general we want more automation and more free time. So we should tax resource consumption. Short time, this might turn out the same (i.e. whether to tax agents through electricity consumption or agents directly might not make much of a difference) but I think long term this would align incentives across a few dimensions very well.

Where do you draw the line to define an "agent" that should pay taxes? Many jobs once done entirely by humans have been replaced by software or mechanical automation long before AI came along. The issue of eroding social safety nets due to declining income tax revenue can be solved in a much more straightforward manner that doesn't require complex AI tax schemes.

Here's a wild idea: about the CEO and shareholders being properly taxed, instead? Every job being replaced by AI is with the purpose of making more money for the CEO and shareholders, right? So, tax them more. It would solve SO MANY issues

Jeremy Rifkin already wrote about that in 1995. His predictions might have been wrong by a few decades. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work

I don't think taxes are the main issue, but people losing their jobs.

We need UBI. Taxes are still there anyway, company income/profit tax, VAT, and maybe we can have other taxes too for automatically-generate income, same as with investments/dividend/gambling tax and stuff.

Doesn't this assume those people don't just find other jobs and continue to pay taxes?

Taxes can't replace people spending money and getting goods and services. Also, who said AI is getting paid well enough to afford paying taxes?

> An <overinflated point> is XYZ. This matters.

You're probably totally innocent, but this comes across as being AI-written, especially in the context of an AI problem and when your response is pro-AI. For the next 3-12 months (maybe more, we'll see), I suspect you'll have a lot more success if you shy away from those speech patterns.

A related point that I've been making privately for at least ten years to anyone that would listen, is that we've had Superhuman Intelligence for at least hundreds, if not thousands, of years in the form of corporations and institutions.

No single human could design a rocket to go to the moon or keep all Wallmart stores supplied on a daily basis. Moreover when something like the CEO or US president changes, the policies and actions change a bit but the majority actually stays the same. This is collective intelligence embodied in the organization and its institutional memory. This is also what i believe is wrong with Searle's Chinese Room argument - the algorithm is the intelligence.

Our cells and neurons act based on local chemical gradients and electrical signals and we wouldn't call any single one of those particularly intelligent. Yet collectively they produce human intelligence and even what we call consciousness!

> A classic management failure is not paying enough attention to something. This is usually not a problem for computer systems. Humans are bandwidth-limited. Teams of AIs are far less bandwidth-limited.

That's a feature, not a bug. CEOs should be focusing on the key goals of the business at a high level.

Having an inexhaustible AI CEO that can pay attention to every little thing in the company could easily turn into a micromanagement nightmare.

"I noticed your key pressed were down 27% last week and your agents sat idle 3 nights in a row. And honestly? The thing to hold on to is that it's not a small thing, it's a load-bearing reduction in your output. Let's try to minimize the blast radius with some belt-and-suspenders productivity tips from the bullet point list below:"

It’s fascinating to think about what role AI will play in corporations. I think it’ll take decades to fully play out.

I’m working through an exploration of how AI will change the Coasean idea of “The Firm” on my site https://chainofbranches.com/conversations/8/branches/59/

We have some interesting evidence from AI agents. People used to make the plan with a stronger and more expensive model, and then use a cheaper model to do the "grunt work" of implementing it.

But it turns out it's better to do it the other way around. A good plan is easy, implementing it is not.

It's funny that when you offload the work to agents they still find away to monopolise each other's time with meetings.

> This is a different kind of AI - corporate-level AI.

So the responses will be even more incoherent than Opus 5?

AIs set up as an organization

I hope legislation is never manipulated enough to allow an AI to form a corporation or become it's legal director. With whom would accountability rest? Who would you throw in prison if it acts egregiously enough to warrant such a measure? If it's bots all the way down.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out, but do we want a paperclip maximizer [0]? Because this is how we get a paperclip maximizer.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...

The funny thing is Decentralised Autonomous organisations (DAO) under Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies had similar goals originally. I do not know where they stand and if ever a useful DAO was created.

If nothing this is a useful demo in real world if used that will show that there are good reasons why hierarchy forms anyways and how power law is at the center of it. Too much democracy may not work in some instances but there may be many cases where the values can hopefully be aligned as well as be lean enough to adapt

> A serious point about this is that it's an AI that's an organization. This matters.

Well, that's the final level of AI.

https://firstmovers.ai/agi-levels/

We could use AI to automate some parts of oversight from board members and CEO, without paying millions on golden parashutes.

Prompts like: you are an activist in XYZ, you wrote this book. Not tell us if this decision is ethical, and if you approve it.

Or running entire HR department in AI...

Eh, it’s nothing new in general. My software development (both at work and private) is being done by teams of semi-antagonistic agents. I only get to see code after the grumpy reviewer bot ran out of reasons to be grumpy and the pedantic formalist ensured all specs are still adhered to. Saves on the most expensive resource.

Your point is well taken, but one thing stood out to me.

> A classic management failure is not paying enough attention to something. This is usually not a problem for computer systems.

This is actually my #1 problem with frontier LLMs. They are plenty smart, but they have no true long term memory, and their context window is not nearly enough for a complex system like a corporation. When my project gets big enough and I'm using a lot of /compact, the LLMs always have the same failure point: they fail to pay attention to something.

When they figure this out, I think it's going to be a very, very big moment.

Why are you using AI for your account to write responses. It's mega annoying. A reason to leave this place. Please. No ai

Since LLMs tend to paraphrase what others have published about similar circumstances, chances are pretty high it will.

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

Be friends with the board. Negotiate high pay and benefits (for themselves), and a golden parachute in case things go south (which they do most often). Take credit for things that were going to happen anyways. Blame xyz for things that didn't work out.

These are all impossible tasks for AI. AI can't play golf.

To paraphrase Andy Grove:

> The job of an executive is: to define and enforce culture and values for their whole organization, and to ratify good decisions.

(And that's the whole list! Nowhere do you find set tasks or make decisions)

To me, that means that they're still pretty essential - on both fronts, AI needs values and AI needs a system that can tell whether decisions are good or not.

At my current job, a 10 person startup, the CEOs job is to generate leads, talk to potential customers, and close deals. He, along with the other founders, shape what we work on based on what he thinks it’s possible for us to sell. He’s essential to the business.

At my previous 50k person company I never talked to anyone within 4 levels of the CEO and thought he was useless. But realistically he probably had a somewhat similar job - talking with the board, talking with politicians, and talking with the CEOs of other companies in the effort to lower costs (tax breaks, partnerships, etc) and generate sales (contracts, partnerships, etc).

In companies large enough to have a board, the CEO's job is to manage relationships with customers, vendors, and wall street. If his company is big enough, he'll need to manage relationships with the government too. In fact, among founders whose business became big, the number one complaint you hear is how little of their busy day is spent on their actual product anymore.

AI is not very good at forming and building human relationships.

Their job is to create an environment where people with a view as narrow and naive as yours can actually do something wholly productive.

Good ones actually are quite aware of the industry, connect the dots and setup the company to be sustainable, growing and ready when its time to be ready.

Like investing in a prototype which solves industry issues the CEO understood.

Same as the CTO just that the CTOs focus is doing the same thing with technology. Like in an org with a lot of 'AI? who cares" saying and seeing the future of it and intorducing it in time and not until everyone else already did it.

Defining core principles like the tech stack, making the decision to keep the current setup or migrating to something 'new' but better in longterm (like migrating from or to kubernetes)

They siphon away as much money as they can get away with , screw over their underlings and hop onto their golden parachutes whenever shit hits the fan, which with their short-sighted coke-fuelled decisions always happens.

> Sometimes the claim is "set vision" - which AI can extract from the collective.

To be an effective CEO, you have to make judgement calls that the collective can’t always have wisdom and context on, is confidential, or requires fast decision making during which there are interactive discussions or negotiations!

Marketing and they hire and fire important people. That's about it though, where we should take the product, what features to do next, partnerships, these are pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.

https://youtu.be/UOYi4NzxlhE?t=82

Managers coach and develop people. Helping them grow, nurturing their strengths and connecting them with opportunities that help them achieve more.

At least the good ones do.

Well, as soon as they start being replaced is there a network to bring.

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

Take risk with other people's lives and earn the big bucks for that.

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

The point of a CEO is to be able to deploy a fully authoritative business delegation to any golf course on earth within 48 hours.

This isn't really a joke. At some point, you need to meet with your customers if you intend to close a deal. B2C is also an option but good luck actually making realistic income in this market without an army at your back.

I have yet to meet a developer (myself included) that I would trust to be alone in the board room with a very large client. Total mastery of the technology is great, but you also need to convince people who aren't compelled by rational technological arguments. Sometimes the only way to convince them is to go on a very expensive fishing trip.

CEOs get a lot of hate for the pay and power, but they endure a lot of shit that most developers couldn't handle for more than five minutes. Sitting at fancy restaurants with these people is torture. I can respect anyone who refuses to believe this, but it's true. There's no cuisine or vintage of wine that can compensate for awful company.

> can AI do <hard thing>

Not yet. Maybe soon. I'm not placing bets on timelines.

> What do CEOs do

No clue. I'm not there yet. Maybe it's critical. Maybe nothing.

> and other managers

There are a lot of bad managers. I'm halfway not terrible. A significant part of my job is setting technical direction in the same way I did as a staff+ engineer but without the overhead of asking somebody else's permission. Another large part is the "shit shield" function -- somebody thinks they want something, and they either find themselves blocked by me or immediately satisfied with whatever code I'm able to cook up between meetings, not breaking the team's concentration. A huge part is basically just being a teacher, and I love teaching (if it weren't so pessimized by society that might actually be my career). A large part of it is navigating organizational nonsense (for "reasons," I'm rambling, ask if you're curious). And... whatever. My job didn't get easier going into management. Not all of it should have to exist in the abstract, but in any specific company it's still an important function.

CEO's exist as a sink for liability. When something goes wrong, they are the fall guys, that's ultimately their job. That's why CEO compensation is generally correlated strongly to earnings and they usually have golden parachutes.

Without a CEO to fire when the business goes south, how is the board supposed to respond? Taking accountability? lmao

In the current legal framework, AI can't be held accountable, a human being is required.

That is what the CEO is for – to be on the receiving end of beatings and flogging if the business they are at the masthead of effs something up.

They manage people. They’re people people.

They ensure the company is funded.

> What does a CEO(and other managers) do really?

The answer is to be responsible to the business. The buck stops at the CEO. Therefore, their responsibilities are technically everything in the entire company. And I think many people who have only worked for other people underestimate how valuable that responsibility is.

Gotta love that they picked sonnet as default for the CEO and most execs..

That an Executive would remember what he recommended a month ago?

came here to make exactly the same comment

Your comment is entirely emotionally driven. “These politicians! These bureaucrats!”.

Let me guess, it just happens that the role that you work in is amongst the only that actually provide value, and everything else is just waste.

Developers are among some of the least self-aware people ever, I swear. And I say this as a developer. The God complex instilled in techies in the ‘00s and ‘10s is unrivalled and I’m really enjoying seeing some of you being taken down a peg.

So we work for the AI? AI should work for us.

Feel the heat? As in, be punished? For what, exactly?

No the best use is to replace hacker news commentors. Let them feel the heat for the fist time in their life.

See you can add anything there and the sentence will make sense.

I will never vote for an AI system to actually make laws lol wtf are you even saying

I'm 6'5 and a jobless software dev. If anyone has a CEO role going spare, let me know, I'll have a crack at it.

This is one thing I appreciate about Japan. There is so many short nerdy looking CEOs

I'm under 6ft and have never been a CEO, so this appears to check out.

My SVP is 6'4". 6 measly feet aint cutting it, that's just "king of manlets" territory.

This is not accurate. I've seen CEOs under 6ft wearing platform shoes do a perfectly good job of walking about looking important.

As I always say, CEOs are corporate status symbols. "Look how successful we are, our CEO is super-handsome, went to William and Mary, and we pay him $15 million a year"

You’d think culture and personality fit with a board of directors would be an easier feat for a robot.

Humanoid robotics has been optimizing for the wrong benchmark this whole time. Forget dexterity, we need executive presence.

Just add some antenna on top

The CEOs at my current job, last job, and previous job were all my height or shorter, and I'm several inches below 6ft.

This is the most reddit thread I have seen on HN ever.

That’s how leaders throughout history have worked. Usually you prove your mettle in the first half of your career and then do the hard work of being the face of the company once you’re an executive. Diminishing what a leader does is the foremost underling cliché throughout all of history.

Shit, why ain't I a CEO, then?

I think either gray hair or bald does a lot too.

Do you think that they will offer the Excelsior package for sale?

Searching for PLG, I found: “In short, companies that use PLG models gain another revenue-generating channel: the company’s product itself.” What a world we live in, that a company's products being a revenue-generating channel is an innovation worthy of note!

The only thing worse than a human CEO is an AI CEO with power to fire you. People just don't think it will do stupid things, have nonsensicle orders which they have to follow, and likely fire people left right and center.

But oh ho there is no human ceo, must be a good place to work!!

Time to read Mona Lisa Overdrive and see what we are still waiting from the future then.

BTW: not all predictions from Neuromancer are there yet...

Highly configurable. Looks like it is targeted at any level of management. The key features seems that it can generate its own vision of how to move something forward and that it can be set with degrees of freedom depending on the use case. Video demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_g97xxVTMk

> Is this automated CEO any good?

Most importantly, what is its golf handicap?

If people would unironically start pushing for this, I genuinely do not know what to do.

I guess that would be at least a nice bang to let democracy finally die. Let's hope that we never see that happening.

___

To expand on that:

I believe that these thoughts are so incredibly harmful to humanity itself, (and, more importantly, I believe that the people in power believe that too,) that we'd be seeing pushback against this.

Maximum pushback, because what the pushback would be defending would be - as said - humanity itself.

Said pushback would be bypassing democracy, because there is no way of arguing with these crazy thoughts. Which would said a precedent, because why stop there.

Which, again, makes me believe that this is some sort of psyop, because I refuse to think that the people on here would really be as blind to the systemic implications of their brainfarts.

___

FWIW, a ruling class worth their net worth would go for the less draconian thing of simply taking away your internet access and forcing you to touch grass.

One that is.. uh.. less signed up on the whole "all people are equal and worth saving" would line up.. idk.. 100 people with these horribly bad-for-humanity ideas and shoot them in the head live on stream or something.

The interesting twist here is that LLM rulers might be more biased towards doing option B, as the statistical probabilities of words cannot _feel_ the chemical hormone cocktail invoked by the mental image of that.

Be careful what you wish for.

It can be configured to replace any mangagment role. The goal is to do for management what co-pilot, cursor and Claude did for development.

> unbiased

Asking models about politically sensitive events differ WILDLY based on the country that produced that AI.

> unbiased

How? If the bias is in the dataset itself, then it'll be in the LLM decision also, right?

Pro tip: you can ask claude this

Corporate officers, including CEOs, have to be "natural persons" (legal jargon for flesh-and-blood humans) either directly by law or indirectly as a practical matter so the attempted turnabout falls flat on its face.

Sun Tzu said to "know your enemy" and those who don't know the basics of how businesses and finance work have no hope of defeating them.

This is hilarious, I feel like we are going to see AI companies add something to the system prompt or terms of service that explicitly forbids having an LLM act as CEO. Honestly though I do hope this gives pause to the C suite when it comes to replacing people with AI

If you want to see that idea extrapolated to an impressive extent, check out Accelerando by Charles Stross. If Stross was right we're in for a bumpy ride.

I'm really not sure why people are cheering for this.

We've been rightfully pissed at companies doing unethical things and getting away with it, as there is simply nothing you can hurt them with.

Why is HN fantasizing about making the companies even less hurtable? Are people here insane? Otoh, a lot of those accounts are just a few months old, so.. welp. Nice psyop we got here.

https://andonlabs.com/blog/andon-market-launch

Yes

Yes, this is actually a reason why an AI executive could be a formidable alternative in theory.

The CEO is ultimately an employee of the board, and managing the CEO with respect to the board's oversight and interest is a somewhat adversarial challenge.

However, the AI CEO's intentions are fully transparent to the board and entirely pliable to the board's demands. The AI CEO also offers the board the opportunity to retain significant equity shares that materially impact their wealth - in this way AI executives stand to be an even more tantalizing target than fixed labor costs.

Of course, this presumes LLMs will become reliable enough for this, which doesn't seem likely.

I would argue that many companies would in fact be better off disappearing for a year, rather than constantly thrashing the company to chase the latest trend.

And judging from the ZIRP hiring sprees and tokenmaxxing, CEOs are more often the driving force behind wasteful spending than they are the safeguards against it...

> should be able to disappear for a year

But I do my job properly and get in trouble when I ask for a week off

I think a lot of this kind of talk treats the C-Suite as special, mystical "visionary" people who Know Things We Can't Know, and by virtue of this otherworldly magical power, are uniquely qualified to do their jobs. Like the average person with basic knowledge of his business and industry can't possibly choose one service provider out of 10 bids, or set business priorities, or drive and enforce culture. We're not talking about wizardry here.

People always dunk on me for saying this outrageous statement, but if you put me in charge of a random Fortune 500 company, I give myself a 50% probability of the company performing better than if its real CEO was in charge, and a 50% probability of it performing worse. I really don't think these guys bring as much to the table as they think they do and as much as the general public seems to think they do. Business success does not come from paranormal insight and abilities.

I think you could randomly nominate CEOs from the set of the general population with, say, a minimum of a college degree, and the randomly nominated CEO's performance would not statistically differ from "qualified" CEOs.

> Almost all decisions that businesses take have nothing to do with the proficiencies of technologies or engineering finesse, or even the best options, but mostly on “incentives” and who can take/own the “blame.”

This argument always confuses me because it seems like lower level employees are the ones that get quickly dismissed when things get bad while a lot of C level executives seem to have some sort of compensation even if they fuck up.

> A very personal view but many developers/engineers fail to see the overall picture. And yes, I was there and I went through all of the mistakes.

What is failling to see the overall picture? I hate this overall picture mysticism. I bet that if people where given the same role and information as the CEO they would be able to see the overall picture.

Op here. Team was let go. Decided to do a startup. We thought that tools like co-pilot and Claude code were transforming development. We wanted to transform management (not just CEOs). We open sourced this knowing that if people find this useful (and we hope they do) we can get a support work out of it (similar to the Redhat model and other open source tech).

What are your qualifications to say that?

Interesting point, but CEO is not necessarily the same as owner.

For those that missed it, the question what current owner would turn over control to an AI?

I could more easily see a individuals delegating work to an AI but retaining actual approval/veto power. In that sense, the approver is basically still the CEO .

> Number of people who think that a leader or a CEO can be replaced by AI and who themselves have actually risked everything to start a company, be a leader, or do anything similar: exactly 0.

Prove it.

> be a leader

There are a lot of bad "leaders" out there running Fortune 500s, fwiw.

If you just want a sociopath with faux accountability that's not very difficult, dime a dozen.

> manager's manager's manager

These executives think shifting peas around the plate is paramount to eating them. That's what toddlers do when they want to try and make mommy think they've done a good thing.

No one wants to just get down to the business of choking down these damn peas.

All AI vendors are hostile to the developer community. This is by definition: they are creating replacements of developers.

> Power is what makes them what they are, not knowledge or skills or empathy.

No. Oh my god no.

This is just engineers coping with the reality that they've been filtered by skillchecks of a system they do not (yet) understand. But instead of doing the engineering thing and starting to understand said system, fox and grapes gets deployed.

Which isn't to say that there would be zero examples of what you describe, but the jump to "all are like this" is crazy, and, more importantly, anti-intellectual.