CEO here, thanks just fired all my C suite team,

https://github.com/SenteLabsAI/OpenExecutive/blob/main/packa...

“Walking away costs you the deal. Signing costs you the company. The math is obvious in retrospect; harder in the moment when there's quota pressure”

such valuable, should I say load-bearing insights

Other gem from my new CFO:

“The financial statements are the result. The variance analysis is where the operating insight lives.”

And my new C(3-)PO just told me

“If we removed all sales involvement, what % of revenue would we still get? #5 is the honest PLG test. If the answer is <30%, PLG is supplementary at best. If the answer is >60%, PLG is the actual motion and the rest is overlay.”

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

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

Someimes the claim is to prioritize the work (with bias), AI can extract that from the collective too, right?

Making resources available to the team? AI.

Coordinating between teams? AI.

Can the AI do this in a more un-biased way? Can it refine collective intelligence and desire into objective goals?

More than a software factory id love to see a manager-factory.

One thing, AI cannot do (yet) is bring the network. Like when you hire folk from Booth or Sloan so you can sell to places that hired Booth and Sloan grads.

I get it’s a joke, and often a frequent cynical joke made here, but I actually think it’s a good thought experiment. Almost like a new Turing test

The thought experiment, to be clear, is building an artificially intelligent CEO or company founder with the intent of generating profit. If this AI can turn a profit, it has passed this new test

Of course, by the time this new AI starts turning a profit, it will be maximized to the extent that it loses its competitive advantage, and then we’re back to square 1. That is, when everyone uses the same AI, nobody has a competitive advantage over anyone else

My current theory is that because of this, it is not possible to build an AI that generates a profit perpetually. Only temporarily. Then human intervention would be required to adjust things to make the AI competitive again. But at that point, it’s no longer an AI driving the profit, it’s its human tinkerer

The best use of AI is to replace CEOs, C-Suite, politicians and bureaucrats. Let them feel the heat for the first time in their life.

Interested folks can start by putting in shareholder resolutions with the proposal and the prompts that would replace CEO. SKILLs.md?

I think AI CEOs are dumb but AI 'enterprise decision-makers' could be very very interesting.

Imagine how quickly your meetings could get resolved if you had teams submit prompts / contexts, had a clear, documented set of overarching objectives, etc.?

To the extent this is tongue in cheek it is funny, but I could imagine if I was building a startup I’d like something like this if it was good.

That said, if you look at what it’s actually doing (read the question carefully, then read what it actually said) I am not convinced this is better than what ChatGPT could do out of the box already.

https://youtu.be/O_g97xxVTMk

An auditable executive would certainly be a first.

Finally a use for Grok Bots!

A team of software developers were recently let go so a company could replace them with AI. So they got together and created an Open Source AI CEO to replace the CEO and other executives. Hopefully, turnabout is fair play and this might even get some folks to think twice about using AI to replace people.

I’m all for productive people, brilliant engineers. I still get dirty with codes/work all the way down to the newly hired fresh out of college kids, to the production architects that shapes multi-million, if not billions, of P&L. I’m also very lucky to be included in key decision making, planning, negating amongst the boards of C-Suites, Directors, VPs.

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.

The things you see on the surface of those incompetent CxOs are just the tiny piece of the bigger picture. You cannot replace blames, decision in the face of uncertainty. 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.”

“AI” replacing developers is evident because that is a rather tiny perspective and kinda easy to do the equation - developer can do that (good, bad, best) and can the AI do it - maybe, perhaps. So, replace.

A C-Suite took a decision to tick the final approval of a billion dollar deal with a service providers (amongst 10s of them). The idea might have sounded idiotic because there were 3 others better at the top than the chosen one. Even if all of the task and options were weighted with AI, but that last human decision is the Blame that the C-Suite took on, by betting his incentives on it (money, fame, pride, ego.)

Honestly, this is hilarious!

Please replace CTOs while you are at it and most architects can also be replaced easily!

looks like a good way to run up a really large anthropic token bill.

Is this automated CEO any good? Is there a listing from a demo session?

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.

Many CEOs are bad and their businesses will either fail or be bailed out. But the work CEOs do is probably some of the last to get automated - higher order strategy, relationship building, managing people.

What company fired them? I don't see that in the repo but maybe I missed it.

This has likely been the case as long as jobs have existed. Some CEOs spend their entire time tweeting, apparently.

The way any large company works, and this includes all the big tech companies, is that they end up in a state of constant churn. Every 6 months or so there's a reorganization. There'san old joke that you get an email that your manager's manager's manager's manager now reports to a new manager and you've never heard of any of these people.

The point of that churn is to make sure nobody is ever held responsible for something not working. It's never given enough time. That's by design. Middle (and even senior) management is about empire-building.

Another quote that springs to mind is that the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. That's how I feel about management bloat.

Anyone who has paid attention to Intel's downfall in the last decade will have heard stories about how the company descended into fiefdoms and it became impossible to get anything done. That's what happens.

Most people in these organizations aren't particularly talented at anything other than forming social relationships. the leadership of these companies always end up having an adversarial relationship with their workers and try to suppress their wages to increase profits so they can get their stock options and bonuses and the CEOs all sit on each other's boards of directors setting each other's compensation packages. It's a lootocracy.

The point of all this is that the leadership will never decide that they are the problem. Take Meta's Metaverse. It was a $70 billion flop. A lot of people got laid off from that. Were any of those worker bees responsible? Nope. They didn't choose the strategy or probably even what they worked on. It takes a lot for heads to roll within senior leadership and with the vote-stacked share structures of many major tech companies, ousting a CEO is essentially impossible.

CEO here, thanks just fired all my C suite team,

https://github.com/SenteLabsAI/OpenExecutive/blob/main/packa...

“Walking away costs you the deal. Signing costs you the company. The math is obvious in retrospect; harder in the moment when there's quota pressure”

such valuable, should I say load-bearing insights

Other gem from my new CFO:

“The financial statements are the result. The variance analysis is where the operating insight lives.”

And my new C(3-)PO just told me

I think AI CEOs are dumb but AI 'enterprise decision-makers' could be very very interesting.

Imagine how quickly your meetings could get resolved if you had teams submit prompts / contexts, had a clear, documented set of overarching objectives, etc.?

To the extent this is tongue in cheek it is funny, but I could imagine if I was building a startup I’d like something like this if it was good.

https://youtu.be/O_g97xxVTMk

An auditable executive would certainly be a first.

Finally a use for Grok Bots!

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

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

Someimes the claim is to prioritize the work (with bias), AI can extract that from the collective too, right?

Making resources available to the team? AI.

Coordinating between teams? AI.

Can the AI do this in a more un-biased way? Can it refine collective intelligence and desire into objective goals?

More than a software factory id love to see a manager-factory.

One thing, AI cannot do (yet) is bring the network. Like when you hire folk from Booth or Sloan so you can sell to places that hired Booth and Sloan grads.

I get it’s a joke, and often a frequent cynical joke made here, but I actually think it’s a good thought experiment. Almost like a new Turing test

The thought experiment, to be clear, is building an artificially intelligent CEO or company founder with the intent of generating profit. If this AI can turn a profit, it has passed this new test

The best use of AI is to replace CEOs, C-Suite, politicians and bureaucrats. Let them feel the heat for the first time in their life.

Interested folks can start by putting in shareholder resolutions with the proposal and the prompts that would replace CEO. SKILLs.md?

Honestly, this is hilarious!

Please replace CTOs while you are at it and most architects can also be replaced easily!

looks like a good way to run up a really large anthropic token bill.

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.

What company fired them? I don't see that in the repo but maybe I missed it.

> 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.

> 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!

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

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.

> 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.

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

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...

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

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

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.

Is this automated CEO any good? Is there a listing from a demo session?

This has likely been the case as long as jobs have existed. Some CEOs spend their entire time tweeting, apparently.

Another quote that springs to mind is that the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. That's how I feel about management bloat.

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

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.

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?