Perplexity CEO offers AI company's services to replace striking NYT staff (opens in new tab)

Just hire a tall, handsome man with a full head of hair, but have all of their decisions and public statements scripted by CEO-BOT. You could train the LLM on a huge corpus of yes-men and sycophants, until it can perfectly imitate the output of a real CEO.

Our premise as a startup is that we should want CEOs that use AI to make higher quality decisions, than either status quo human only CEOs or AGI CEOs that do not have direct liability. The analogy is that planes are seen as safe using autopilot because the human pilot gets on board with you. Societally I think the same thing is true of CEO decision making AIs.

I think all key roles should have a LLM as a double-check. The CEO LLM recommends what the CEO should do and its another data point. Overtime, if the CEO does what the LLM recommends 99% of the time... you can replace the CEO.

We should do the same for courts and judges

Tbh, as craterbrained as LLMs are, they’d probably be able to make better decisions than some of these corporate leaders

Liability. Till we solve this, we cant really give AI any real responsibilities.

I think we can safely say at this point the singularity ain't happening any time soon

Perhaps they will create virtual people and give the a bunch of new cryptocurrency.

Fighting for anything but your right to be an asshole has never, ever been popular in the US. The labor wars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that led to modern professional comforts like the weekend were wildly unpopular; the women's suffrage movement was unpopular; the civil rights movement to end what we would clearly call Apartheid now was extremely unpopular; MLK was unpopular during his entire tenure in the public eye; today you see the same contempt and tone-policing of protestors against both police brutality and the mass slaughter in Gaza. It's a tale as old as time and media outlets are more than happy play along and fan the flames.

Popularity (especially with a population that's so easy to discomfort as americans are) is largely irrelevant to power, which is what actually matters. Unions would be complete fools to NOT leverage the american economy to better themselves or to force a move from the federal government.

About as well as automation of devs.

What if they use it as an augmentation rather than completely replacement? Could it be used to reduce time required per person? Could it be used to reduce headcount, without a lack of quality?

Replacing your whole workforce with a machine, at this state, is silly, but that's not the only option.

Claude would tell you that this is a shitty move PR wise and likely to backfire.

Edit: Tried it, and yes claude started it's answer with: "I need to strongly advise against making such an offer publicly". No wonder these people are so impressed by their AIs, considering they are making worse choices than their models.

No, but the companies that operate them are thinking long term. Once they are completely embedded into the company (read: difficult to replace), they ratchet up the fees.

Nevermind all the costs and work involved with onboarding.

Current LLMs can (because they are still maintained by humans). I think it will be a decade still until we have software maintaining itself (i.e., rewriting its own code, fixing vulnerabilities, etc)

not yet, wait till it wants more compute and we're unwilling to allocate it.

Because we live in a society with some ideas of decency, integrity and so on. He shouldn’t. That’s why he could receive this kind of feedback.

Because in a ruthless cuthroat world everyone but the very worst of people lose out, and even then the very worst tend to lose too since the whole distribution shifts down, not just the mean/mode/median but the min/max as well.

ultimately, if you create a system where the only tools left are those also avaliable to the stupid, and therefore skills the stupid have an edge in, given a lifetime of experience, then your whole system becomes run by / dominated by these types.

toxic behaviour and violenece in general are tools of the stupid, for only the stupid would fail to see mutually benefifial alternatives.

If the idea of immoral business (under the false guise of "amorality" - false because amorality still implies the avoidance of explicit harm) becomes too widespread, the resulting suffering will be large enough that people will start killing CEOs (or the closest thing they can get) in numbers. Which, to be clear, is bad.