alt Hacker NewsI know it's a joke, but you're not correct. While chatbots are very good at finding interesting data points they're not good at understanding what makes for interesting data points.
Good executives function in the background of the day to day work for most people. Good executives stand out when they set clear directions and can identify what information they need, at the top, to change direction or modify scope or whatever. They don't impact the actual work happening every single day so they just blend in. They impact the work at the entire organization, which will change the day to day, but usually for the better.
The problem is there are very, very, very few good executives. Most that I've interacted with are either narcissistic, lazy, incompetent, or a combination thereof.
In the decades and decades of my professional career, I've worked with one truly good executive leader. He was phenomenal, and guided the organization I was with through some very tough times (layoffs, then covid, then a restructure).
That's one of several hundred.
Replies
> The problem is there are very, very, very few good executives. Most that I've interacted with are either narcissistic, lazy, incompetent, or a combination thereof.
His point is that narcissistic, lazy, incompetent people are easy to replace with AI. In other words, most executives and grant writers. Why are you framing it like you disagree? He is correct.
Also a point about style for "someone who excels at technical writing": an LLM could help you come up with stronger, more evocative wording than very, very, and very. I try to use words like "very" zero times in a row, because there's always a better word that actually adds something more insightful to the description than a generic "very" or three. Using "very" three times in a row is like eating a whole box of unflavored starch packing peanuts.
The other several hundred minus one were doing pretty well though, weren't they? Sounds like the average executive can be replaced by AI.