• zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    Vaughan was surprised to find it was often the technical staff, not marketing or sales, who dug in their heels. They were the “most resistant,” he said, voicing various concerns about what the AI couldn’t do, rather than focusing on what it could. The marketing and salespeople were enthused by the possibilities of working with these new tools, he added.

    Imagine that.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah I have a CEO like that, it makes me want to strangle him. He constantly considers the raising of valid concerns to be some sort of personality failing. Meetings with him are an utterly pointless exercise, they’re not meetings, they are times where he tells us what he’s already decided to do.

      Fortunately the held on Teams now, so I just joined the meeting and then go make a cup of coffee.

      • redwattlebird @lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, I disagree. The CEO is by far the most replaceable person when it comes to AI if the directive is to simply make more money for shareholders based on market research. I would argue that the CEO is being a parasite here.

        • rekabis@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          CEOs are invariably the parasites in virtually any company where they earn more than 10× than their median employee.

          Nothing that can be done inside the business can justify compensation like that. Ergo: parasitism of the profits, of siphoning away more and more value that the workers produce just for themselves and those of their fellow parasites.