CEOs like to brag about how AI is going to replace skilled workers. Yet, it should be obvious to anyone having experience in LLMs that top executives are the jobs that are most likely replaceable by AI.
Just keep smooth talking everyone into cost reductions and make arbitrary decisions to make it feel like you're actually in charge.
They make that claim because what CEOs write down could easily be written by a Markov Model, nevermind an LLM. If that was the primary value a CEO brought to the company they'd be right.
The most important thing a CEO brings is relationships. LLMs can't do that (yet).
Post script: there's still a chance that LLMs replace CEOs due to LLMs being easier for the board to influence/control.
because 95% of the time it's "follow the herd" BS + always defer to the lowest cost. the rest is schmoozing, making people feel comfortable, sounding confident, and working the soft skills.
chatGPT always sounds confident, and it's not hard for it to calculate the lowest possible option and take it.
Wouldn't that be funny to see an AI bot replace the CEO of something like Boeing, and then see the company turn around in positive moves? Feed an LLM all of the business data that a CEO would have and then ask it to make the same decisions the CEO would be expected to make. Since layoffs would be the trend online for LLMs to train on, would they come up with slop that looks like they too follow the trends? If companies are willing to replace dev with AI, why are boards not looking at all of the C-suite offices with the same mindset?
Because the agonizing is part of their job. That's called "animal spirits" / managing expectations. The expectation of future interest rates is nearly as important as what they actually are.
Wallstreet would be screwed by this. You can't take away the gambling aspect and big wins because then you are left with a pre-80s style market where dividends and steady income matter over 'line goes up next quarter'. The current market would HATE that.
Many economists point out that the Fed's policies serve the 1% above all.
Heck you can get a Nobel Prize based on your Fed chairmanship, then tank the economy.
One pundit observes that the Fed is an example of "burn the village to save the village" as (rarely) an underemployed firefighter-turned-arsonist will do. Extreme perspective for sure.
In the era of Big Data, can't real-time data and policy co-exist?
It seems to me that a large percentage of jobs exist just to exist, and that they use their continued existence to justify their continued existence. I wonder how much the world would keep spinning if 90% of people were laid off. Maybe we'll find out if AI is adopted widely enough...
If data was reliable, instant, and comprehensive, this might work. Of course, under those circumstances socialism or communism would probably work out even better.
It is precisely because data comes out murkily, with a lag - and the effects of changes have a lag as well- that managing the Federal Reserve can't by reduced to a simple process. It is an art done by humans- one where 'general trust in the institution' is the single most important variable of the last 40 years.
Interest rates work with different lags in different parts of the economy. The current hiking cycle basically only just has taken its full effect (think when people refinance debt and when they delay this.)
Just keep smooth talking everyone into cost reductions and make arbitrary decisions to make it feel like you're actually in charge.