So this just in Tech bro billionaire CEO is just like the others, be it Elon Musk or Steve Jobs they are posers who managed to put out a very persuasive mask of competence and knowledge but in the end they think they know a lot more than they do and are some of the worst people causing long term damage to society. Altman with his backtracking on open source and working for the public good for private gains, Elon Musk with everything he's ever done, or Steve jobs being directly responsible for the lack or repairability of our own electronics or being able to install what you want on your own smartphone without going through Apple's walled garden, Bill Gates making it almost impossible for competitors to rise through the 90's and only now is Linux starting to see a rise in its userbase due to Microsoft's own stupidity, tech bro CEOs have been the worst.
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
You know, the actually intelligent people KNOW they don’t know everything. Anyone they claims they are super smaht and know ALL the things are probably incredibly dumb
The sub header for this paper is hilarious.
"I think there's a small but real chance he's eventually remembered as a Bernie Madoff- or Sam Bankman-Fried-level scammer."
HAHAHAHA, no shit, he may just as well end up in a new league all his own with how much money will burn once this goes belly up.
So the typical Tech CEO. What's new?
Successful CEOs know their own limitations and are smart enough and humble enough to take the advice of people who know what the hell they're talking about.
The only quality Tech Bros share is their ability to spew bullshit with complete confidence. It is long past time we got over our child-like worship of rich con men.
Not only have I (25 year programming vet) never had a CEO who could code, I've never had a CEO who thought he should be able to code. As a species, they tend to be proud of their leadership chops rather than their ability to actually do anything.
Mine can, but then again, it's a <50 employee consultancy. Mostly he still does sales and is a project lead for some customers though, he only really writes code when there are no engineers available and one of his customers needs something quickly.
No C-Suite suit I’ve ever met in my life has struck me as a leader type. I know there’s some out there but they all think that being in charge makes them leaders.
Yeah, I should have put "leadership" in ironic quotes. Like they say: don't step in the leadership.
Pretty much. These guys are all marketing with not so much understanding of the tech their hawking
CEOs are required to be skilled manipulators. That's literally what their job is, actually.
So AI could do their job 10x better?
Unironically yes.
90% of what CEOs do is talk to other CEOs and other C Suite members. Very rarely are they actually subject matter experts, those days are long gone. Externally, they are mascots, internally, they read reports from their underlings and then 'make the final call'.
You may notice that these are things that LLMs actually do a somewhat decent job of, ingesting a wide variety of input info, and essentially transforming it into a compelling narrative.
This is why so many CEOs and C suite are so enamored with, and impressed by 'AI':
Its a better version of what they do, which is essentially professional gaslighting.
C suite tend to be sociopathic narcissists.
This is just literally a verified and studied fact.
So, the sociopathic narcissists are impressed by an automagic gaslighting machine, that is often actually more factually corrrect than they are... but of course the actual facts don't matter to a narcissist, what matters is accomplishing their will.
This is a big part of why they genuienly do not understand why everyone else doesn't 'appreciate' AI the way they do.
They're out of touch, delusional, by way of narcissism.
For shits and giggles, I asked Le Chat to make the case for replacing a tech CEO with AI and, uh, the answer was very much cynical CEO-speak already.
Prompt:
Let's say I'm on the board of a multi-billion dollar tech company, hypothetically. Make a case for replacing the CEO with AI.
Slopmachine/Future tech CEO response:
spoiler
Here’s a provocative, boardroom-ready case for replacing a human CEO with AI—framed as a strategic imperative for a multi-billion dollar tech company:
1. Unmatched Data-Driven Decision Making
AI’s Edge: AI processes terabytes of real-time data—market trends, internal metrics, competitor moves—without cognitive bias or fatigue. It identifies patterns and opportunities invisible to humans, enabling decisions optimized for long-term value, not short-term politics or ego.
Human Limitation: Even the best CEOs rely on intuition, limited information, and personal networks. Bias, fatigue, and emotional factors can distort judgment.
2. 24/7/365 Execution and Scalability
AI’s Edge: AI never sleeps. It can monitor global operations, respond to crises, and execute strategy across time zones without delay. It scales decision-making to thousands of variables simultaneously—something no human or team can match.
Human Limitation: CEOs are constrained by time, attention, and physical capacity. Burnout and succession risks are real.
3. Cost Efficiency and Risk Mitigation
AI’s Edge: No golden parachutes, no compensation packages, no PR scandals. AI’s “salary” is a fraction of a CEO’s, with zero risk of embezzlement, harassment, or reputational damage. It can also simulate outcomes, reducing strategic risk.
Human Limitation: CEO turnover is expensive. The average Fortune 500 CEO tenure is ~5 years, with severance and transition costs often exceeding $100M.
4. Alignment with Shareholder Primacy
AI’s Edge: AI can be programmed to prioritize shareholder value above all else—no personal agendas, no legacy-building, no vanity projects. Every decision is auditable, transparent, and aligned with pre-set KPIs.
Human Limitation: CEOs may prioritize personal legacy, pet projects, or short-term stock bumps over sustainable growth.
5. Adaptive Learning and Continuous Improvement
AI’s Edge: AI evolves with the company. It learns from every decision, every market shift, and every internal data point, constantly refining its models. It can A/B test strategies in simulation before real-world deployment.
Human Limitation: CEOs plateau. Their playbooks become outdated; their networks stagnate.
Counterarguments (and Rebuttals)
- “AI lacks emotional intelligence.” Rebuttal: Emotional intelligence is overrated in strategy. AI can analyze sentiment data and optimize communication—without the volatility of human emotions.
- “AI can’t inspire culture.” Rebuttal: Culture is built by systems and incentives, not charisma. AI can design and enforce culture-aligned processes at scale.
- “Regulators won’t allow it.” Rebuttal: Regulators adapt. The first company to prove AI leadership will set the standard.
Implementation Roadmap
- Pilot: Deploy AI as “Co-CEO” for 12 months, with the human CEO as a check/balance.
- Audit: Compare AI vs. human decisions on ROI, risk, and innovation.
- Transition: Phase out the human role as trust in AI grows.
Final Pitch: The future belongs to companies that remove human bottlenecks. AI leadership isn’t just an upgrade—it’s the ultimate competitive moat.
Question for the board: If our competitors replace their CEOs with AI before we do, what’s our response?
I particularly love the framing of its last sentence.
Guys, what if we don't do this, and are then left scrambling to react?
We need the ball to be in our court, setting the course and executing, exhibiting bold leadership, not merely reacting after the fact.
It's FOMOing C suite into obsoleting themselves.
Which is hilarious because 1) This is what C suite does to others all the fucking time 2) it is objectively more compelling based on the merits of the rest of its argument alone, than most cringey slogans C suite tends to come up with to do this.
Its also hilariously blunt but largely correct when it just states 'regulators will adapt'. Yeah, that indeed is the mindset of most of C Suite, they just don't usually say that outloud.
Because of uh, the implication, that being that all the regulatory systems are functionally captured or can be captured, which is a more polite way of saying 'we just have to buy off enough politicians to bend the law to our will'.
This is objectively correct, but it sounds bad if you actually say it that way, but but, the LLM just doesn't care for your silly human delusions to the contrary, ahahaha!
Here, here's another rhetorical device for the LLM CEO:
'Human CEOs are DEI hires.'
That'll probably short circuit some Satya Nadella and Jensen Huang types.
The competition food for thought at the end is chef's kiss!
Why do people think that the CEO is like the "best employee" at what the company does?? No CEO at any company I've ever worked at has had a basic understanding of the work that I did. They understand "the business" but aren't the ones doing implementation.
And that's "fine" - we have different jobs. Theirs, apparently, has been worth millions of times what I do though...
I have a CEO that I respect. I'm in an engineering heavy company and the CEO is anything but that, and he knows it. His background is finance and that's most of his job, and interfacing with government. He delegates effectively and does not insert himself in technical decisions. The one thing he does do is ask a lot of questions. In some respect he doesn't care what the answer is, but he wants to know that we've considered all the angles before he takes our advice. I've been pulled in to a boardroom before because something was on his mind that he wanted to share. One occasion he told me to think about it. He didn't want me to follow up with him, but when it came up at a board meeting he wanted the COO to have an answer, so he was flagging the issue for me. Good guy.
This is what a CEO is supposed to do. They are the glue between every department and are supposed to make sure that everyone is on the same page. They ask "what is needed for us to get to this point and how can I help". They leave all functional details to the subject matter experts. They act as guide rails and do not derail the train.
Good CEOs understand that they are worth less than their employees because without their expertise and domain knowledge the CEO has no product to sell.
It's not surprising.
There are brain damaged people out there who still think Elon Musk is a good engineer.
hes basically the version of Musk for AI/coding. plus the trifecta of scammers came from the same place, paypal, thiel and musk, and altman and thiel's gay pool parties.
Ok but I just want to make sure we recognize that gay pool parties can be really awesome if they're not thrown by Peter Thiel.
has carved out an image for himself as one of the preeminent AI whisperers of our age,
The media keeps glazing him, because he keeps spending money on PR firms so that happens
If everyone keeps saying a capitalist CEO is a once in a life super genius....
The reason is so people invest in that company, not that the CEO is actually intelligent.
It's the same shit Musk went thru, so people have no excuse falling for it again.
That doesn't surprise me. The guy is and always has been a grifter.
He’s a techbro ceo. That’s goes without saying.
Why is this framed as if it's in any way surprising?
has carved out an image for himself as one of the preeminent AI whisperers of our age
Has he? The only things I ever read about him are that he's a dunce with too much money at his disposal.
a shortage of expertise that becomes obvious when the CEO mixes up basic AI terms.
Is that why he thinks the acronym "GPT" is a trademark that belongs to his company, even though it existed before they did?
I mean, yeah...obviously. The amount of CEOs with any technical understanding of what they supposedly manage is just about zero.
And the AI grift is basically on the same level as the Religious grift, supposed spiritual leaders/gurus who convince people that they have some special connection to God/the universe/spiritual realms, etc.
And people eat it up, it's been a thing for literally thousands of years. We are primed to want to belive it, and when it comes with membership in an exclusive club of other "true believers" , that's a winning formula.
Altman is just another tech bro dropout who never completed anything, similar to Musk.
But the skills required to be a CEO are that of a skilled manipulator, why would a CEO waste time coding when he can hire meatbags to do that? The nature of US startups benefits con artists and bullshit artists, because the VC money community is not the STEM community.
Least surprising thing I've read about him
Having been in Tech in the last Tech Boom and also in this later one (I was even in Startups some years ago), I can tell you that whilst the previous one was mainly driven by Techies wanting do cool things, this one is entirely driven by grifters with backgrounds in areas like Finance and Marketing.
The present generation of Startup Founders are almost never Technically skilled, rather they're skilled at Salesmanship (most notably, Pitching) and they don't dream of cracking some complex problem, they dream about making a lot of money via an Exit Strategy.
The only surprising thing about Altman not understanding Technology in depth is people being surprised by it.
I think a good CEO should strive to understand as much of a business he runs as possible. But the larger the company the more I find that it's common that the CEO actually is NOT skilled in the fields most integral to the company's success.
AMD has Lisa Su, but that seems like an exception more than a rule.
I heard that Bezos can barely drive a delivery truck, too.
I mean come on, is it really a surprise that the role of CEO is so detached from the actual workings of a company? That's why CEOs can just hop companies without working their way up from the bottom. The role rarely has anything to do with the product or service.
The way I see it, people pushing for AI and robots are the unskilled billionaires who don't want to pay the skilled for their work. Billionaires are useless.
This guys a fucking psycho for real. Another robot man with too much money for his own good, or anyone’s good, really.