[lazide]

Eh, also in legal practice there are key skills like selecting the best billable clients, covering your ass, building a reputation, choosing the right market segment, etc. which I’d also argue LLMs suck at.

[gadflyinyoureye]

I don’t know. There was some talk this weekend about CEOs being replaced by AI. Given the overlap in skill, I’d say there is a distinct possibility an LLM could do that. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ceos-could-easily-...

[threeseed]

Phoebe Moore who that quote was attributed to has never been a CEO or even worked at a non-academic organisation.

So much of a what a CEO does is fostering culture, hiring people and setting a unique vision for the company.

Imagine thinking people would be inspired to work for a chatbot. Hilariously ridiculous.

[pojzon]

If that chatbot had Steve Jobs voice ?

I dunno, I would probably prefer to work under that chatbot than my current CEO that only tries to squize as much as possible out of ppl already working for him.

[lazide]

Like the chatbot wouldn’t squeeze you 10x harder.

At least a human CEO has to worry about being arrested or someone setting their house on fire.

[mrguyorama]

Steve Jobs didn't even worry about cancer enough to save his life. Why the fuck do you think he would have an even remote understanding that squeezing people could result in consequences for him?

[lazide]

I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making here.

[lazide]

Bwahaha. This is like the ‘everything can be a directed graph db’, ‘everything should be a micro service’, etc. fads.

No one who has been a CEO, or frankly even worked closely with one, would think this could be even remotely close to possible. Or desirable if it was.

But that is probably 1% or less of the population eh?

[EGreg]

https://www.dqindia.com/company-makes-ai-robot-its-ceo-makes...

Seems your claim's been disproven already

[lazide]

Bwaha. Funny the company named as doing so doesn’t mention it on their actual management team [http://www.netdragon.com/about/management-team.shtml], listing an actual human CEO instead.

But it makes for a fun soundbite eh? Especially when the article claims it was in the past, and totally was awesome. Sucker born every minute.

[paulcole]

> which I’d also argue LLMs suck at

OK, I’ll bite. What’s your evidence for this argument?

[lazide]

Every bit of interaction I’ve ever had with an LLM. And all the research I’ve seen.

They’re plausible word sequence generators, not ‘planning for the future’ agents. Or market analyzers. Or character evaluators. Or anything else.

And they tend to be really ‘gullible’.

What evidence do you have they could do any of those things? (And not just generate plausible text at a prompt, but actually do those things)

[paulcole]

> What evidence do you have they could do any of those things?

Every bit of interaction I’ve ever had with an LLM.

[Terr_]

Yeah, I fear a lot of human exuberance (and thus investment) is riding on the questionable idea that a really good text-fragment-correlation specialist engine can usefully impersonate a generalist "thinking" AI without doing too much damage. ("LLM, which rocks are the best to eat?")

But there's a scarier further step: When people assume an exceptional text-specialist model can also meta-impersonate a generalist model impersonating a specific and different kind of specialist! ("LLM, create a legal defense.")