• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    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.

    They’re dangerous petty narcissistic sociopaths.