this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
335 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
84597 readers
4009 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This shows that AI can't do that job either.
They said the dystopian part out loud.
I love to shit on middle management as much as anybody else, but good managers are great. My manager worked his way up as a systems architect. He's incredibly smart, very friendly, and always has my back.
What getting rid of middle management does is build a solid wall between the workers and the upper class. There's no corporate ladder to climb. If you start at the bottom, you stay at the bottom. The people on top hire their buddies and other people in their class. This is like a drone strike on the shrinking middle class.
I'd be more afraid of losing that ladder if it were not already absent. Upward mobility in my country, at least, has essentially become a fiction.
I wonder if AI would actually be good at replacing CEO and other C-suite positions, but was trained in such a way to purposely not be good at replacing a CEO because tech CEOs are the ones in control of this bubble.
It has the number 1 qualification for being a C-suite employee - no soul!
Also endless bullshit.
Tells me you've never used it and had it deliver extremely convincing analysis which turns out to be pants on head stupid when you dig into the nitty gritty. It is only useful if you can continually watch its output and make it redo anything that is nonsense and no the AI can't watch itself. It will happily confirm that its nonsense is great. It needs either manual and continual analysis or guardrails that tell it when its wrong.. It's why it can be used for software because tests and error messages can catch it fucking up. Real life lacks such affordances.
I've used AI for work. We have something built based on claude. I only use it for finding particular lines of code, finding datadog logs, maybe identifying bugs, and finding old Jiras. It basically just saves time then the rest I do myself or work with engineering.
Your comment tells me you never worked with someone in the C-suite before. Most Chief level positions will happily confirm their nonsense is great.
Yes but it is training from this and as a result should get better. Ai was bad at everything until it stole the Internet and used it for training.
It's an llm though, not really ai, and it hasn't really gotten "better," than automated programs to make decisions based on metrics, which would outperform llm's as a ceo.
Mind you, stealing the internet worked because they effectively had the sum total of human knowledge as a training set. I don't think that there's nearly as much detailed data on the minutiae of running a business.
Especially not when they blame its mistakes on “limited context window” AKA learning disability.
You mean like the emails and archived chats of said business?
"get better" by guessing a different string of words with no logic or reasoning
There is no model that can be trained in real time currently, and one instance isn’t going to offer anything to the model as far as new training data goes.