I like that this idea is brought up though, despite it being ridiculous currently, to hold a mirror in front of CEO faces. Just like we won't replace capable (!) CEOs with AI any time soon, we will not replace capable (!) developers with AI any time soon.
It is good, that CEOs also get some of this "You will be replaced by AI!" flak, that we hear from CEOs of big tech directed at developers. Do those CEOs think their job is more complex than a software developer job, which they are so eager to replace? How many times more urgently do we want to replace the CEO, considering salaries? How about we put as many times the amount of money into that, as we are putting into trying to replace developers?
In the end neither will work out any time soon, judging current "AI"'s actual AI level. I think for that we still need some 2-3 architectural leaps forward. And by that I don't mean simply building bigger ANNs and ingesting more data. It already seems like the returns for that are rapidly diminishing.
This is not about the job being complex, they’re the top of the food chain. Also they have a network that an automated system could not replicate because it’s not a technical problem but more of a people problem
> Do those CEOs think their job is more complex than a software developer job, which they are so eager to replace?
You can estimate the difficulty of a job by what fraction is the population can successfully do it and how much special training this takes. Both of which are reflected in the supply curve for labor for that job.
> How many times more urgently do we want to replace the CEO, considering salaries? How about we put as many times the amount of money into that, as we are putting into trying to replace developers?
Pretty sure that (avg developer pay * number of developers) is a lot more that (avg ceo pay * number of ceos).
Since businesses need to start somewhere/when and most startups fail, I think most people who even get into the role of CEO, are doing it successfully. However, this is a lot due to circumstances and many factors outside of their control. There are also many CEOs ruining their businesses with bad decisions. It is not certain, that an "AI" wouldn't do at least as good as those failing CEOs. Similarly, many developers ruin things they touch, introducing tons of complexity, dependencies and breaking user workflows or making workflows cumbersome without listening to user feedback and so on.
In short many people do a bad job and businesses are carried by others, who do a good enough job to make a net positive for the final product. Or consequences of messing up are happening slowly, like a slow user drain, or a user replacement with bad actors until good actors start to leave, or any other possibility.
About the pay argument: Well, these days you still need a good crew of developers to make the shiny AI toys do what you want them to do, so you are not replacing all of the developers, so you can't calculate like that. If we calculate some Silicon Valley CEO making 2 million and a developer making 100k-200k, then we are still at a ratio of 10x-20x. If we manage to make only one CEO obsolete or 2 out of 3 CEOs 1.5x as efficient, we have achieved a cost saving of 10-20 developers! Yay!...
It is good, that CEOs also get some of this "You will be replaced by AI!" flak, that we hear from CEOs of big tech directed at developers. Do those CEOs think their job is more complex than a software developer job, which they are so eager to replace? How many times more urgently do we want to replace the CEO, considering salaries? How about we put as many times the amount of money into that, as we are putting into trying to replace developers?
In the end neither will work out any time soon, judging current "AI"'s actual AI level. I think for that we still need some 2-3 architectural leaps forward. And by that I don't mean simply building bigger ANNs and ingesting more data. It already seems like the returns for that are rapidly diminishing.