One of the most discouraging moments in my training was when I was looking into the literature around Decision Support Systems, in the context of Geographic Information Systems as a tool for supporting complex efforts.
Over and over, no matter the specific focus of a study, the authors would reiterate that no matter the quality of the information produced by the decision support system, decision makers were more likely to go with solutions supported by people the decision makers considered to be peers, even when the hard data showed that the opposite course was more justified.
In short, CEOs and similar almost always care more about the opinions of other CEOs than being true to the scientific ideal.
So to go back to the name of our species, ‘homo sapiens’ as a name is aspirational, not reflective of fact.
Perhaps ‘homo recumbens’ would be more appropriate as a descriptor, but I prefer we keep the current name so as to at least give us something to strive for.
The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens (‘wise man’). In any case it’s an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.
Over and over, no matter the specific focus of a study, the authors would reiterate that no matter the quality of the information produced by the decision support system, decision makers were more likely to go with solutions supported by people the decision makers considered to be peers, even when the hard data showed that the opposite course was more justified.
In short, CEOs and similar almost always care more about the opinions of other CEOs than being true to the scientific ideal.
Extremely ironically, what this means is that the actual prime candidate for a job to replace with AI…
Is CEOs, C Suite.
They are the most expensive employees, after all.
Maybe not replace them with LLMs as we currently have them, beyond possibly being used to generate a narrative, human readable explanation of their decision making process and policies…
Where the actual decision making and policy determinations would themselves be decided by basically a much more specialized algorithm, that is made out of code a human can actually read.
Like, we’ve already got Zoom entirely seriously trying to get AI-LLMs that train themselves on your work emails and chats, then make an avatar emulation of ‘you’, then send that to digital meetings, then output the chat log ‘results’ of this ‘meeting’.
So, there you go.
C Suite doesn’t really do anything beyond networking and corpo politics, this can simulate that, minus the off the record corruption, which shouldn’t be a problem, right?
… Its always been about power and social status.
If otherwise, they’d all be developing something along the lines of what I just described, putting themselves out of a job, and retiring on their already massive wealth.
No, they don’t do that.
They are addicted to being superior, to being able to ruin people.
One of the most discouraging moments in my training was when I was looking into the literature around Decision Support Systems, in the context of Geographic Information Systems as a tool for supporting complex efforts.
Over and over, no matter the specific focus of a study, the authors would reiterate that no matter the quality of the information produced by the decision support system, decision makers were more likely to go with solutions supported by people the decision makers considered to be peers, even when the hard data showed that the opposite course was more justified.
In short, CEOs and similar almost always care more about the opinions of other CEOs than being true to the scientific ideal.
So to go back to the name of our species, ‘homo sapiens’ as a name is aspirational, not reflective of fact.
Perhaps ‘homo recumbens’ would be more appropriate as a descriptor, but I prefer we keep the current name so as to at least give us something to strive for.
Terry Pratchett
Extremely ironically, what this means is that the actual prime candidate for a job to replace with AI…
Is CEOs, C Suite.
They are the most expensive employees, after all.
Maybe not replace them with LLMs as we currently have them, beyond possibly being used to generate a narrative, human readable explanation of their decision making process and policies…
Where the actual decision making and policy determinations would themselves be decided by basically a much more specialized algorithm, that is made out of code a human can actually read.
Like, we’ve already got Zoom entirely seriously trying to get AI-LLMs that train themselves on your work emails and chats, then make an avatar emulation of ‘you’, then send that to digital meetings, then output the chat log ‘results’ of this ‘meeting’.
So, there you go.
C Suite doesn’t really do anything beyond networking and corpo politics, this can simulate that, minus the off the record corruption, which shouldn’t be a problem, right?
… Its always been about power and social status.
If otherwise, they’d all be developing something along the lines of what I just described, putting themselves out of a job, and retiring on their already massive wealth.
No, they don’t do that.
They are addicted to being superior, to being able to ruin people.
They’re dangerous petty narcissistic sociopaths.