[HN Gopher] AI CEO - Replace your boss before they replace you
___________________________________________________________________
AI CEO - Replace your boss before they replace you
Author : _tk_
Score : 351 points
Date : 2025-11-27 18:37 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (replaceyourboss.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (replaceyourboss.ai)
| pygy_ wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20059894
|
| Called it, six years ago :-)
|
| I can see boards of directors drooling at the potential savings.
| belter wrote:
| Tesla can immediately make a saving of $1 Trillion
| auggierose wrote:
| Love this one.
| tylerflick wrote:
| Musk isn't getting a trillion. Tesla sales would have to
| skyrocket.
| koliber wrote:
| Imagine that they do skyrocket but the RoboCEO is in charge
| trillion gets distributed to shareholders.
| pixelready wrote:
| Imagine that at least half the shares were held by a
| sovereign wealth fund that paid dividends to every
| citizen.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The package doesn't say who the buyers must be. Musk could
| just have his other pet companies by Teslas to meet the
| threshold.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| unforuntely, that 1T is because Elon's buddies are on the
| board. They're a bunch of rich human centipedes.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| > We don't have meetings, we have collaborative ideation
| experiences
|
| yep, checks out.
| yojat661 wrote:
| Can we also replace shareholders with Ai
| canyp wrote:
| I don't get why people get a boner with CEOs. They are mostly
| irrelevant, the real power lies further above.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| They're at the center of the hourglass that exists between
| external (board members, shareholders, customers, partners)
| and internal (employees) interests.
| canyp wrote:
| Interesting visualization, never thought of it that way.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Also, the people in charge of CEOs (the board) are
| generally CEOs themselves. It's a good old boys' club where
| they all make sure to take care of each other.
| gscott wrote:
| One mention of 3d printed chicken spins up a new ai CEO,
| several ai damage control agents, Ai apology, new ai product
| ads, repeat as needed.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Why waste GPU cycles when a simple bash script would do?
| zkmon wrote:
| Funny. Infact, the blockchain smart contract (DAPPs) tried this
| before, by fully automating (they call it democratizing) the
| decisions. Not sure how it went.
| keiferski wrote:
| This looks like the perfect counterpart to Boss as a Service:
|
| https://bossasaservice.com/
| chasing0entropy wrote:
| Can you design an AI agent that I own, to replace me? This is
| what the market really wants and is probably one of the ONLY
| things that doesn't exist.
|
| Just let me subscribe to an agent to do my work while I keep
| getting a paycheck.
| crackalamoo wrote:
| Isn't this kind of the same as an AI copilot, just with higher
| autonomy?
|
| I think the limiting factor is that the AI still isn't good
| enough to be fully autonomous, so it needs your input. That's
| why it's still in copilot form
| -_- wrote:
| That's the premise behind Workshop Labs!
| https://workshoplabs.ai
| IshKebab wrote:
| Why would the market want that? Don't be stupid.
| geoffmanning wrote:
| The world doesn't want assholes either but here we are
| georgehotz wrote:
| Who's giving you that paycheck? Why don't they just hire that
| AI agent themselves and cut out the middle man?
| fijiaarone wrote:
| Can you explain why we pay Sam Altman & Elon Musk? Or Jeff
| Bezos & Bill Gates? They're just middlemen collecting money
| for other people's labor.
| georgehotz wrote:
| You are welcome to try to cut them out and start your own
| business. But I suspect you might find it a bit harder than
| your employer signing up for a SaaS AI agent. Actually
| wait, isn't that what this website is? Does it work?
| gridspy wrote:
| They are a bridge between those with money and those with
| skill. Plus they can aggregate information and act as a
| repository of knowledge and decision maker for their teams.
|
| These are valuable skills, though perhaps nowhere near as
| valuable as they end up being in a free market.
| nawgz wrote:
| A mistake lies in thinking it's a market, but it's
| egregious you'd call it free
| gridspy wrote:
| The free market is an analyzable simplification of the
| real market, however I think the assumptions hold in this
| case.
|
| If a CEO delivers a certain advantage (a profit
| multiplier) it's rational that a bidding war will ensue
| for that CEO until they are paid the entire apparent
| advantage of their pretense for the company. A similar
| effect happens for salespeople.
|
| The key difference between free and real markets in this
| case is information and distortions of lobbying. That
| plus legal restrictions on the company. The CEO is
| incentivized to find ways around these issues to maximize
| their own pay.
| gausswho wrote:
| Sounds like skills that bots already do better than
| humans.
| dboreham wrote:
| This is backwards. Those people got into the positions they
| have by having money to _spend_ , not because someone
| wanted to pay them to do something. (Or they had a way to
| have control over spending someone else's money.)
| georgehotz wrote:
| Do people on Hacker News actually believe this? Each one
| of the four people named built a product I happily pay
| for! Then they used investment and profits to hire people
| to build more products and better products.
|
| There's a lot of scammers in the world, but OpenAI,
| Tesla, Amazon, and Microsoft have mostly made my life
| better. It's not about having money, look at all the
| startups that have raised billions and gone kaput. Vs say
| Amazon who raised just $9M before their $54M IPO and is
| still around today bringing tons of stuff to my door.
| coliveira wrote:
| The most successful scammers will provide you with
| something of value and then act to swindle you and many
| others of multiple times the amount of "value" they're
| generating. With Musk and their friends it seems to be
| the pattern.
| georgehotz wrote:
| Musk sells several things. Electric cars for $40k-$100k.
| Satellite internet for $40-$120 per month. X/Grok premium
| for $8/mo. And space launch services for about $2,500 per
| kg. Which one(s) of these are the scam? Prices seem
| decent to me, but if you tell me where I can get cheaper
| and better I'm open to it.
| hnjobsearch wrote:
| The "scam" part of Tesla has been well-documented, from
| their failure to deliver reliable full self-driving to
| the Cybertruck's low quality manufacturing, there is a
| lot of information out there about it.
|
| I can't comment on the other things.
| georgehotz wrote:
| comma.ai owns a lot of cars, including a Tesla, so I have
| tried most cars in the price range. Tesla is certainly no
| more of a scam than the other cars, and compared to say,
| the Chevy Bolt, it's a lot better. Can you suggest a
| better car for the value? Is there another car I can buy
| with better full self driving?
| coliveira wrote:
| Scam Altman and Musk are paid to manipulate stock markets
| and enrich themselves and their friends.
| Mtinie wrote:
| In this scenario the person who wants to be paid owns the
| output of the agent. So it's closer to a contractor and
| subcontractor arrangement than employment.
| georgehotz wrote:
| How do they own it? I see two scenarios.
|
| 1. They built the agent and it's somehow competitive. If
| so, they shouldn't just replace their own job with it, they
| should replace a lot more jobs and get a lot more rich than
| one salary.
|
| 2. They rent the agent. If so, why would the renting
| company not rent directly to their boss, maybe even at a
| business premium?
|
| I see no scenario where there's an "agent to do my work
| while I keep getting a paycheck."
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| If you know contracting, you know that's exactly how it's
| always worked.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| It's the equivalent of outsourcing your job. People have
| done this before, to China, to India, etc. There are
| stories about the people that got caught, e.g. with China
| because of security concerns, and with India because they
| got greedy, were overemployed, and failed in their opsec.
|
| This is no different, it's just a different mechanism of
| outsourcing your job.
|
| And yes, if you can find a way to get AI to do 90% of
| your job for you, you should totally get 4 more jobs and
| 5x your earnings for 50% reduction in hours spent
| working.
| georgehotz wrote:
| Maybe a few people managed to outsource their own job and
| sit in the middle for a bit. But that's not the common
| story, the common story is that your employer cut out the
| middle man and outsourced all the jobs. The same thing
| will happen here.
| EGreg wrote:
| Let me generalize
|
| The problem is the organizing principle for our entire
| global society is competition.
|
| This is the default, the law of the jungle or tribal
| warfare. But within families or corporations we do have
| cooperation, or a command structure.
|
| The problem is that this principle inevitably leads to
| the tragedy of the unmanaged commons. This is why we are
| overfishing, polluting the Earth, why some people are
| freeriding and having 7 children with no contraception
| etc. Why ecosystems -- rainforests, kelp forests, coral
| reefs, and even insects -- are being decimated. Why one
| third of arable farmland is desertified, just like in the
| US dust bowl. Back then it was a race to the bottom and
| the US Govt had to step in and pay farmers NOT to plant.
|
| We are racing to an AIpocalypse because what if China
| does it first?
|
| In case you think the world don't have real solutions...
| actually there have been a few examples of us cooperating
| to prevent catastrophe.
|
| 1. Banning CFCs in Montreal Protocol, repairing hole in
| Ozone Layer
|
| 2. Nuclear non-proliferation treaty
|
| 3. Ban on chemical weapons
|
| 4. Ban on viral bioweapons research
|
| So number 2 is what I would hope would happen with huge
| GPU farms, we as a global community know exactly the
| supply chains, heck there is only one company in Europe
| doing the etching.
|
| And also I would want a global ban on AGI development, or
| at least of leaking model weights. Otherwise it is almost
| exactly like giving everyone the means to make chemical
| weapons, designer viruses etc. The probability that NO
| ONE does anything that gets out of hand, will be
| infinitesimally small. The probability that we will be
| overrun by tons of destructive bot swarms and robots is
| practically 100%.
|
| In short -- this is the ultimate negstive externality.
| The corporations and countries are in a race to outdo
| each other in AGI even if they destroy humanity doing it.
| All because as a species, we are drawn to competition and
| don't do the work to establish frameworks for cooperation
| the way we have done on local scales like cities.
|
| PS: meanwhile, having limited tools and not AGI or ASI
| can be very helpful. Like protein folding or chess
| playing. But why, why have AGI proliferate?
| kgwxd wrote:
| > agent to do my work while I keep getting a paycheck.
|
| They already exists, and have for a very long time, but
| I'm sure as shit not telling my customers about it.
| zwnow wrote:
| How are businesses going to get money if there are no humans
| that are able to pay for goods?
|
| Lots of us are not cut out for blue collar work.
| macintux wrote:
| As long as someone else is still paying their employees,
| it's all good.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Some humans will be rich and they'll buy things. For
| example those humans who own AI or fabs. And those humans,
| who serve to them (assuming that there will be services not
| replaced by AI, for example prostitution), will also buy
| things.
|
| If 99.99% of other humans will become poor and eventually
| die, it certainly will change economy a lot.
| ares623 wrote:
| That's assuming a large chunk of humanity will just lay
| down and die off.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Probably why Elon etc want to replace militaries with
| drones.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2024/11/25/elon-
| musk...
| ares623 wrote:
| Not a lot of difference between an F-35 and a fleet of
| drones when it comes to it tbh. If F-35s are not enough
| then I don't see how drones will fare better. IMO drones
| are just a way for Elon to get his foot in the door.
| jmoggr wrote:
| All they have to do is not reproduce. This is already
| happening.
| coliveira wrote:
| The 99% of humans will band together and destroy the ones
| who "own" things.
| lurk2 wrote:
| > How are businesses going to get money if there are no
| humans that are able to pay for goods?
|
| By transacting with other businesses. In theory comparative
| advantage will always ensure that some degree of trade
| takes place between completely automated enterprises and
| comparatively inefficient human labor; in practice the
| utility an AI could derive from these transactions might
| not be worth it for either party--the AI because the
| utility is so minimal, and the humans because the
| transactions cannot sustain their needs. This gets even
| more fraught if we assume an AGI takes control before
| cheaply available space flight, because at a certain point
| having insufficiently productive humans living on _any_
| area of sea or land becomes less efficient than replacing
| the humans with automatons (particularly when you account
| for the risk of their behaving in unexpected ways).
| Joker_vD wrote:
| There is an amount of people who own, well, in the past we
| could say "means of production" but let's not. So, they own
| the physical capital and AI worker-robots, and this
| combination produces various goods for human use. So they
| (the people who own that stuff) trade those goods between
| each other since nobody owns the full range of production
| chains.
|
| The people who used to be hired workers? Eh, they still own
| their ability to work (which is now completely useless in
| the market economy) and nothing much more so... well, they
| can go and sleep under the bridge or go extinct or do
| whatever else peacefully, as long as they don't try to
| trespass on the private property, sanctity and
| inviolability of which is obviously crucial for the
| societal harmony.
|
| So yeah, the global population would probably shrink down
| to something in the hundreds millions or so in the end, and
| ironically, the economy may very well end up being self-
| sustainable and environmentally green and all that nice
| stuff since it won't have to support the life standards of
| ~10 billions, although the process of getting there could
| be quite tumultous.
| zwnow wrote:
| This is disgusting to read, not going to lie. Hopefully
| the workers just lynch the people who enriched themselves
| on other peoples work.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I didn't read the parent comment as _endorsing_ that
| outcome, simply predicting that if people chase profits
| without regard for the well being of their fellow man,
| that 's where we might end up heading. I think the
| question we have to answer is "how can we prevent that?",
| because history has shown us that humans are _very happy_
| to run roughshod over others to enrich themselves.
| zwnow wrote:
| It for sure is endorsed by the tech billionaires...
| Humans greed is just so tiring to me. I am so fucking
| tired of seeing good people suffer while some tech bros
| wipe their asses with pure gold.
| coliveira wrote:
| Thanos at least planed to destroy only 1/2 of the
| population. This is already beyond dystopian.
| avdelazeri wrote:
| That is more or less what I fear. If the top 10 percent
| already account for half of all consumer spending, and I
| equality keeps getting worse and worse, that's probably
| where it will end.
| danenania wrote:
| A question is which side agents will achieve human-level
| skill at first. It wouldn't surprise me if doing the work
| itself end-to-end (to a market-ready standard) remains in the
| uncanny valley for quite some time, while "fuzzier" roles
| like management can be more readily replaced.
|
| It's like how we all once thought blue collar work would be
| first, but it turned out that knowledge work is much easier.
| Right now everyone imagines managers replacing their
| employees with AI, but we might have the order reversed.
| jMyles wrote:
| > This begs the question of which side agents will achieve
| human-level skill at first.
|
| I don't agree; it's perfectly possible, given
| chasing0entropy's... let's say 'feature request', that
| either side might gain that skill level first.
|
| > It wouldn't surprise me if doing the work itself end-to-
| end (to a market-ready standard) remains in the uncanny
| valley for quite some time, while "fuzzier" roles like
| management can be more readily replaced.
|
| Agreed - and for many of us, that's exactly what seems to
| be happening. My agent is vaguely closer to the role that a
| good manager has played for me in the past than it is to
| the role I myself have played - it keeps better TODO lists
| than I can, that's for sure. :-)
|
| > It's like how we all once thought blue collar work would
| be first, but it turned out that knowledge work is much
| easier. Right now everyone imagines managers replacing
| their employees with AI, but we might have the order
| reversed.
|
| Perfectly stated IMO.
| OtherShrezzing wrote:
| The AI agents don't appear to know how & where to be
| economically productive. That still appears to be a uniquely
| human domain of expertise.
|
| So the human is there to decide which job is economically
| productive to take on. The AI is there to execute the day-to-
| day tasks involved in the job.
|
| It's symbiotic. The human doesn't labour unnecessarily. The
| AI has some avenue of productive output & revenue generating
| opportunity for OpenAI/Anthropic/whoever.
| ruined wrote:
| i don't think you could find a single economist that
| believes humans know how and where to be economically
| productive
| cyanydeez wrote:
| not unless you can afford your own super cluster. Otherwise,
| the AI you use will own you.
| globular-toast wrote:
| What would you actually do if you got that? I like watching
| movies and playing games, but that lifestyle quickly leads to
| depression. I like travelling too, but imagine if everyone
| could do it all the time. There's only so many good places.
| Teever wrote:
| I would use the AI to build a robot that could build copies
| of itself and then once there are a sufficient number of
| robots I'd use them to build more good places to go to.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| > Just let me subscribe to an agent to do my work while I keep
| getting a paycheck.
|
| I've already done this. It's just a Teams bot that responds to
| messages with:
|
| "Yeah that looks okay, but it should probably be a database
| rather than an Excel spreadsheet. Have you run it past the dev
| team? If you need anything else just raise a ticket and get
| Helpdesk to tag me in it"
|
| "I'm pretty sure you'll be fine with that, but check with {{
| senior_manager }} first, and if you need further support just
| raise a ticket and Helpdesk will pass it over"
|
| "Yes, quite so, and indeed if you refer to my previous email
| from about six months ago you'll see I mentioned that at the
| time"
|
| "Okay, you should be good to go. Just remember, we have Change
| Management Process for a reason so the next time try to raise a
| CR so one of us can review it, before anyone touches anything"
|
| and then
|
| "If you've any further questions please stick them in an email
| and I'll look at it as a priority.
|
| Moran taing,
|
| EB."
|
| (notice that I don't say how high a priority?)
|
| No AI needed. Just good old-fashioned scripting, and organic
| stupidity.
| xtracto wrote:
| Reminded me of an episode of the IT Crowd where they put a
| recording of "Have you tried turning it off and on again? as
| the answering machine for an IT department.
| firefoxd wrote:
| I've replaced myself for the better part of a year now. You can
| too: https://getproxyai.com/
| fblp wrote:
| lol this also appears to be satire?
| firefoxd wrote:
| We follow a moto in our company:
|
| > While none of the work we do is very important, it is
| important that we do a great deal of it.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| This seems a frivolous attitude to something so serious.
| Have you considered how using a proxy could make you align
| your attitude better?
| saaaaaam wrote:
| Take my money!
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Really this is the only 10x part of GenAI that I see: increasing
| the number of reports exponentially by removing
| managers/directors, and using GenAI (search/summarization, e.g.
| "how is X progressing" etc) to understand what's going on
| underneath you. Get rid of the political game of telephone and
| get leaders closer to the ground floor (and the real
| problems/blockers).
| dboreham wrote:
| Also replaces lawyers.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| From what I hear, this will not happen. AI keeps absolutely
| making up laws and cases that don't exist no matter what you
| feed it. Basically anything legal written or partially
| written by AI is a liability. IANAL but have been reading a
| tiny bit about it.
| Jabrov wrote:
| Ehhh just calling a raw LLM is not going to replace anyone
| and be prone to hallucination, sure. But lawyers are
| increasingly using LLM systems, and there's law-specific
| products that are heavily grounded (ie. they can only
| respond from source material).
| cheema33 wrote:
| The need for lawyers will shrink and is shrinking. My
| company used to call lawyers for many small little things.
| Now it is easy to ask an LLM and have the second LLM verify
| it. For super critical things, we may still call lawyers.
| And in the court rooms, you will still see lawyers. But
| everywhere else the need for lawyers will keep going down.
| insin wrote:
| > Now it is easy to ask an LLM and have the second LLM
| verify it
|
| I genuinely can't tell when people are and aren't being
| serious any more.
| Xunjin wrote:
| Worth to note that lawyer is not only read a text and say:
| "true or false" requires interpretation and understanding
| of how a society changes/evolves, depending on the country
| it's jurisprudence or more analytical (written laws).
|
| I have a difficult in see why a portion of HN audience is
| so "narrowed view" about justice systems and politics.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| My boss is a pretty awesome technologist, too, but has a lot of
| time sunk into business stuff.
|
| I sent this along as a joke but I doubt any of us are enthused
| about working for an AI.
|
| It would be cool to automate more of that business stuff but I
| suspect it's too "soft" to actually automate.
| beng-nl wrote:
| This is an interesting observation - soft skills may turn out
| to be hard to automate.
| didibus wrote:
| Joke aside, I do think think someone should work on a legitimate
| agent for financial and business decision, management, and so on.
|
| Especially "decision making". I find it's one of the things that
| are tricky, making the AI agent optimize for actually good
| decisions and not just give you info or options, but create real
| opinion and take real decisions.
| callamdelaney wrote:
| Unfortunately LLM's aren't good at making decisions.
| bofadeez wrote:
| I know they're supposed to be smarter than a year ago but you
| could have fooled me
|
| I'm in a loop with Opus 4.5 telling it "be logically
| consistent" and then it says "you're absolutely right" and
| proceeded to be logically inconsistent again for the 20th
| time.
| thisisit wrote:
| What kind of financial and business decisions? And what will be
| the metric for "good decision"?
| yawnxyz wrote:
| Do we even ask these questions for existing analysts? If
| anything, we should be evaluating them neck to neck.
| Animats wrote:
| Aw, it's just a joke. I thought someone was ready to really try
| it.
|
| Eventually, there will be AI CEOs, once they start outperforming
| humans. Capitalism requires it.
| satisfice wrote:
| Capitalism requires that capital is owned and controlled by
| specific people. So, no, there cannot be an AI CEO. In other
| words, if you say you have an AI CEO, then that entity will be
| under the control of someone else, whom you might as well call
| the real CEO.
|
| Just like how Twitter had a "CEO" who was some pliable female
| who did the bidding of the real CEO: Elon Musk.
| groestl wrote:
| The way AI (and capitalism really) makes CEOs obsolete is by
| replacing all companies with just one. So only one CEO needed
| eventually.
| zurfer wrote:
| There are shareholders/owners and CEOs. You can certainly
| have an AI CEO if the board of directors wants that. Although
| depending on the jurisdiction CEOs might need be humans, but
| surely not everywhere.
|
| And you could even imagine AI owners with something like
| Bitcoin wallets. So far it wouldn't work because of prompt
| injections but the future could be wild.
| Octoth0rpe wrote:
| > Capitalism requires that capital is owned and controlled by
| specific people.
|
| That is an overly simplistic description. One can imagine a
| board of directors voting on which AI-CEO-as-a-service vendor
| to use for the next year. The 'capital' of the company is
| owned by company, the company is owned by the shareholders.
| This is not incompatible with capitalism in principle, but
| wouldn't surprise me if it were incompatible with some forms
| of incorporation.
| vanschelven wrote:
| in the same vein as http://developerexcuses.com/ (and presumably
| many others)
| j45 wrote:
| Great name.
| tt24 wrote:
| The UI looks good! Is there a reason this is being shared here?
| Feels like a collection of tired, trite oneliners that I'd expect
| to see on Twitter rather than here.
| input_sh wrote:
| Thank you brand new account, your contributions so far have
| _clearly_ been more valuable!
| tt24 wrote:
| 1. This account was created months ago. 2. This doesn't seem
| like a very polite or valuable contribution either.
| input_sh wrote:
| ...and you haven't contributed anything in those months.
|
| You went from one one-sentence-long comment months ago
| straight into criticising what _other people_ contribute in
| this thread. Do you think that 's fair of you?
| andy99 wrote:
| Agreed, it's only superficially funny, there's a ton left on
| the table that could have made it actually good, it feels like
| it doesn't adequately parody CEOs or AI in a way that indicates
| any insight.
| coffeecoders wrote:
| How hard would it be to run a simulator with multiple LLMs. Say,
| one as the boss and a few as employees. Just let them talk,
| coordinate, and "work"? Could be the fastest way to test what
| actually happens when you try to automate management.
| fragmede wrote:
| Not exceedingly so: https://news.ysimulator.run/faq
| IshKebab wrote:
| I dunno the comments here perfectly capture HN-ackshewelly!
|
| https://news.ysimulator.run/item/4317
| ai-christianson wrote:
| This is quite literally what we've built @ Gobii, but it's prod
| ready and scalable.
|
| The idea is you spin up a team of agents, they're always on,
| they can talk to one another, and you and your team can
| interact with them via email, sms, slack, discord, etc.
|
| Disclaimer: founder
| krater23 wrote:
| And they simulate a externalized team where the enterprize
| that pays the team doesn't knows that it's just AI and just
| thinks that these chinese/indian/african people of this
| external team are really bad at what they are doing.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Can I get this in an ant-farm mode where I can see them
| doddle around a cube-farm office?
| ai-christianson wrote:
| Great idea :)
| coffeecoders wrote:
| Interesting approach, but I mean more in the sense of a
| multi-agent sandbox than workflow automation. Your project
| feels like wrapping a bunch of LLMs into "agents" with fixed
| cadences, it is a neat product idea, even if it mostly ends
| up orchestrating API calls and cron jobs.
|
| The thing I'm curious about is the emergent behavior, letting
| multiple LLMs interact freely in a simulated organization to
| see how coordination, bottlenecks, and miscommunication
| naturally arise.
|
| Cool project regardless!
| ai-christianson wrote:
| Agreed, the emergent behavior is the most interesting and
| valuable part. We don't want bad emergent behavior (agents
| going rogue) but we do want the good kind (solving problems
| in unexpected ways.)
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Can your team of agents figure out why the extremely basic
| homepage does a stutter step on a $7000 Macbook Pro: or are
| they taking off Thanksgiving?
|
| https://imgur.com/a/WZG9VLm
| PhilippGille wrote:
| Multiple projects for autonomous multi agent teams already
| exist.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| Left to their own devices, the LLMs would probably design a
| pocket watch.
| simultsop wrote:
| Shut up and take my money.
| jondwillis wrote:
| I love that they're all called David except for Simon
| coliveira wrote:
| This is a common thing among their mafia.
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| You can make this yourself quite easily.
|
| Choose a UI that lets you modify the system prompt, like open
| WebUI.
|
| Ask Claude to generate a system card for a CEO.
|
| Copy and paste the output into a system prompt.
|
| There you have it, your own AI CEO.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Now do Dropbox next
| danenania wrote:
| Though I think the CEO role is realistically one of the hardest
| to automate, I'd say middle management is a very juicy target.
|
| To the extent a manager is just organizing and coordinating
| rather than setting strategic direction, I think that role is
| well within current capabilities. It's much easier to automate
| this than the work itself, assuming you have a high bar for
| quality.
| damion6 wrote:
| Looks like that's a response to Linus and Linux community saying
| that Qualcomm chips I weren't able to run Linux what hey it's
| good though at least now there's internal support
| thisisit wrote:
| I like the fun part of it. But this is clearly vibe coded slop.
| The awful pink colour scheme, clickable buttons which don't do
| anything bang in middle of the page, the share button which
| doesn't really share etc.
|
| And some of the messages keep repeating like carbon footprint
| etc. Just seems low effort and not in a fun way.
| willis936 wrote:
| Counterpoints: this joke isn't worth the effort to make it high
| quality and the jank is part of the joke. AI slop is garbage,
| presenting it as otherwise would be missing the point.
| shmerl wrote:
| Is that you, Delamain?
| hbarka wrote:
| Our CEO did not write a customary Thanksgiving email. There was
| nothing from other C-level leadership. I've been around long
| enough to see this erosion in company culture custom. What is
| happening? Perhaps an AI CEO would have these subtleties.
| briandw wrote:
| Ok so clearly a satire. However I kinda want this. They make some
| really good points about how an AI would be better than many
| CEOs. Honestly some of the companies I've worked for would be
| better with Gemini at in charge. Yes humanity is doomed, but at
| least I would understand the motivations and we'd have less CEO
| ADHD moments. (CEO ADHD -> "Some other CEO told me about X, why
| aren't we doing X")
| caminanteblanco wrote:
| I feel like if I mention technology X in my system context for
| Gemini, there is a 100% chance that when I ask for hiking
| recommendations Gemini will say "As a user of technology X, you
| would appreciate the beauty and elegance of the Cuyamaca
| National Forest"
| arbuge wrote:
| I'd be concerned about all the CEO's reports prompt injecting
| the boss though.
|
| Give me a raise so I can buy her medicine, or my grandma
| dies...
| darth_avocado wrote:
| If the AI is good enough to replace a CEO, dead grandma is
| part of the training data
| sagarm wrote:
| This already happens! We just call it schmoozing.
| tcgv wrote:
| Only Male AI-CEO avatars?
|
| Gender bias checked!
| canyp wrote:
| I was going to mention the same thing, also the page is clearly
| designed by a woman. Never mind that neither Sundar nor Satya
| are not white, or that many VPs in the Big Tech world are
| women. OP seems to have a very distorted view of the corporate
| world and has villified the white alpha male in her mind.
| artursapek wrote:
| man, why does slop like this get to the front page yet my project
| I've been slaving away on dies in "New"
| cheema33 wrote:
| The answer is easy, if you choose to accept it.
|
| Your project, whatever it may be, is worse than this AI slop.
|
| If you think it is not, please share it here. Let us judge it.
| A little honest feedback might be what you really need.
| Barathkanna wrote:
| The site is obviously satire, but the interesting part is the
| growth tactic behind it. oilwell.app is using a meme page as a
| distribution engine instead of a standard marketing site.
|
| In a crowded AI tooling market, this kind of contrast joke on the
| front paired with a real product behind it, cuts through noise in
| a way a normal landing page wouldn't. People mock the gimmick,
| but the gimmick is doing exactly what it's designed to do, get
| everyone talking.
| seydor wrote:
| It's easier to replace the ceo and management than the leaf nodes
| of production. The opportunity for CEO as a service is enormous
| thih9 wrote:
| Easier in what way? I'd say this wouldn't fare better than
| other recent AI implementations.
|
| I.e. I'd guess doing this in practice with current state of the
| AI and without expert supervision would lead to some
| catastrophic error relatively soon.
| seydor wrote:
| managerial roles are information-based , while we are far
| from automating a multi-faceted physical-world-facing role
| such as a plumber or a cook
| sagarm wrote:
| The job of the C-suite is generating plausible human text,
| which LLMs are very good at.
| patrick4urcloud wrote:
| nice !
| frag wrote:
| Ah fun enough I wrote a post just about that
| https://open.substack.com/pub/defragzone/p/ceo-is-obsolete?r...
| mannanj wrote:
| lol fun satire and totally true true for the bigger companies the
| incentive for the board is to replace the excess too.
| beezle wrote:
| The free version of Gemini says it could not replace the CEO of
| JP Morgan Chase but that it would make an excellent Chief Risk
| Officer or Chief Strategist. That would still save a ton of
| money!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-27 23:01 UTC)