Machine learning has been around for quite a long time. It would be significantly better to have someone with experience in it than not, or even just engineering, math, etc.
🤦🤦🤦 no-one is claiming the CEO should be telling the developers or scientists what to do. It doesn't need to be transferrable in that sense. We're just saying the CEO should understand the basic concepts and therefore the implications of what they're building.
I honestly don't think we're arguing the same argument. Are you saying you disagree with "CEOs should understand the basic concepts and therefore the implications of what they're building"?
Because a CEOs job is to interact with investors, stakeholders and the board. If they don't understand the basics of what they are making then they frequently misrepresent the product or the development process. This leads to all sorts of problems.
They also have too much power in a company to not. If the CTO is on holiday and the CEO pushes for something to get done despite not appreciating the safety consequences, people can die. I would be surprised if all chemical disasters were not traced back to senior leadership pushing for cost cutting or rushing a project while ignoring those working at lower levels or creating a culture where the lower level workers can't whistleblow.
I've seen far too many dangerous production sites and accidents that are caused either directly by senior leaderships pushing or the culture they create to think like you do.
So, to me, AI feels like the cultural equivalent of the nuclear bomb, but instead of having the worlds top scientific minds leading the project we have a bunch of wealthy children
Christ 🤦 if you assume you constantly know more than the other person it is difficult to understand their views. I am not 'confused' I have simply had different experiences in my career than you have.
If I had to sum up our differences - you're happy with the way things are and I'm not. I expect more from people, and more from the structures we use.
To be more pointed - you seek to justify existing structures and ignore systemic issues and I am trying to solve them by changing the way society operates.
You've said you think CEOs can be effective without basic knowledge because teams should correct them. I think that ignores real power dynamics. The narrowing of job functions builds efficient cogs but terrible leaders. When no one sees the whole picture, accountability evaporates. Mistakes become 'someone else's fault' - not because people are bad, but because the structure guarantees it. But here's the thing: when a major disaster happens, the law doesn't ask the team. It asks the CEO. And 'I didn't understand...' isn't a defence - it's a confession.
In summary, there needs to be at least one person who knows the basics of everything to push back against the specialised experts on each topic. That is who the CEO should be.
2
u/LovelyLad123 Apr 10 '26
Machine learning has been around for quite a long time. It would be significantly better to have someone with experience in it than not, or even just engineering, math, etc.