After all the hype around Devin and its eventual reveal as mostly fluff, I’ve been thinking: why are AI tools always aimed at working-class tasks like coding, writing, and accounting? You never see AI targeting executive roles like CEOs or board members.
People like Altman go on interviews selling $2k/month AI that acts like a ‘PhD-level worker,’ which sounds impressive. But let’s be real, this tech mainly helps execs justify cutting jobs.
Here’s what nobody seems to ask: Why not make AI executive agents? The flaws we see in AI, like hallucinating facts, could actually work in a CEO’s favor. In coding, mistakes are bad. But a CEO confidently selling a vision? That’s often seen as a plus.
Wouldn’t it benefit developers and small startups to have an AI CEO agent that could secure funding and skip the usual hurdles? Curious what others think.
AI agents work best with specific tasks and clear success criteria, like balancing accounts or hitting a click-through rate. CEOs juggle way more: relationships, economic trends, and industry strategy. I don’t see AI doing all that at once anytime soon.
As someone in a CTO role, I spend most of my day solving problems that require human judgment or context. Tools like ChatGPT were more useful for my side projects than they are now. Automating my role is possible, but we’re not there yet.
I think this is intentional. They push flawed AI products to make the public skeptical before anyone realizes the real potential for managing roles. Remember how the Patriot Act passed without much scrutiny? Same playbook.
There was promising tech for AI in politics and management a decade ago, but now the market’s filled with art apps no one asked for.
Interesting take! AI replacing working-class jobs creates a power imbalance. An AI CEO agent could level the playing field, especially for small teams or startups. Would love to hear more thoughts on how feasible this is.