Former shopify employee here. Tobi is scum, and surrounds himself with scum. He looks up to Elon and genuinely admires him.
Can we prove AI can do the job of the CEO?
You know what happens when you use too much AI? Some important skills atrophy, and when you need to do the more complex job that the AI can’t do, it will be even harder to do the more complex thing, because you’ve lost some base skills you rely on.
This doesn’t apply only to coding: https://lucianonooijen.com/blog/why-i-stopped-using-ai-code-editors/
Dear Tobi Lütke - AI can do your job too. Care to comment?
Should ask the AI model if a CEO is required
I develop AI agents rn as part time for my work and have yet to see one that can perform a real task unsupervised on their own. It’s not what agents are made for at all - they’re only capable of being an assistant or annotate, summarize data etc. Which is very useful but in an entirely different context.
No agent can create features or even reliably fix bugs on their own yet and probably not for next few years at least. This is because having a dude at 50$ hour is much more reliable than any AI agent long term. If you need to roll back a regression bug introduced by an AI agent it’ll cost you 10-20 developer hours as minimum which negates any value you’ve gained already. Now you spent 1,000$ fix for your 50$ agent run where a person could have done that for 200$. Not to mention regression bugs are so incredibly expensive to fix and maintain so it’ll all scale exponentially. Not to mention liability of not having human oversight - what if the agent stops working? You’ll have to onboarding someone on an entire code base which would take days as very minimum.
So his take on ai agents doing work is pretty dumb for the time being.
That being said, AI tool use proficiency test is very much unavoidable, I don’t see any software company not using AI assistants so anyone who doesn’t will simply not get hired. Its like coding in notepad - yeah you can do it but its not a signal you want to send to your team cause you’d look stupid.
Id tell them I can get AI to do anything they want. They’re the ones who will be paying for me to spend not hours but days tweaking prompts to get whatever shit they want done that could’ve been done faster cheaper and better with appropriate resources so fuck it I’m in.
ask why there is a need for CEO, a job that can be done by AI.
Dystopian.
Also:
If you work there, run away fast.
So it Latke going to fund the resources needed to validate whether AI will work or not?
Shopify is a stupid fucking name. I can only assume the company and service is equally as stupid.
Are you trolling or have you really never heard of shopify? Prolly every ecommerce website you’ve ever visited was built by either wix, big commerce or shopify with shopify (iirc) holding the largest market share of the 3. That may have changed since I last looked at adding e-commerce builders to my investment portfolio but theyre definitely top 3.
Next thing you know he’s going to say WordPress isn’t used by anyone.
It’s being used by less people now because their CEO is a fucking idiot who’s trying to destroy it.
I’ve heard the (stupid) name before but had no idea what they did. Not everyone on Lemmy works in tech or has investment portfolios… But it sounds like if I’ve bought something online I’ve probably used them before?
Hard to imagine a CEO doing something that would make me less likely to apply or use their service.
Dear CEOs: I will never accept 0.5% hallucinations as “A.I.” and if you don’t even know that, I want an A.I. machine cooking all your meals. If you aren’t ok with 1/200 of your meals containing poison, you’re expendable.
Humans or even regular ass algorithms are fine. A.I. can predict protein folding. It should do a lot else unless there’s a generational leap from “making shitty images” to “as close to perfect as it gets.”
Why?
Because it’s alpha software. We’re 40 years away from “A.I.” being able to be competent at anything.
Na man. It’s being used extensively in many jobs. Software development especially. You’re misinformed or have a biased view on it based on your personal experience with it.
I use it in software development and it hasn’t changed my life. It’s slightly more convenient than last gen code completion but I’ve never worked on a project where code per hours was the hold up. One less stand-up per week would probably increase developer productivity more than GitHub Copilot.
Even if it does the basic shit at the expense of me working one less hour a week, it’s not worth paying for. And that ignores the downsides like spam, bots, data centers needing power/water, and politicians thinking GPU cards are national security secrets.
I don’t think we need a Skynet scenario to imagine the downsides.
Did you see the wack ass Quake II version Microsoft bragged about? It wasn’t even playable. A fucking 12 year old could do better.
Are you a business owner?
Not currently. I used to be.
“Stagnation is almost certain, and stagnation is slow-motion failure.”
This has some strong Ricky Bobby vibes, “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” I never have understood how companies are supposed to have unlimited growth. At some point when every human on earth that can use their service/product is already doing so, where else is there to go? Isn’t stagnation being almost certain just a reality of a finite world?
This concept is very often misinterpreted by these tech CEOs because they’re terrified of becoming the next Yahoo or Kodak or cab company or AskJeeves or name any other company that was replaced by something with more “innovation” (aka venture capital). It’s all great they’ll lose wealth.
The underlying concepts are sound though. Think of a small business like a barber shop or restaurant. Even a very good owner/operator will eventually get old and retire and if they haven’t expanded to train their successor before they do, the business will close. Which is fine, the business served the purpose of making a living for that person. Compare with McDonalds, they expanded and grew so the business could continue past the natural lifetime of a single restaurant.
A different example of stagnation is Kodak. They famously had the chance to grow their business into digital cameras early on, their researchers and engineers were on the cutting edge of that technology. But the executives rejected expansion in favor of sticking with the higher profit margins (at the time) of film cameras. And now they’re basically irrelevant. Expanding on this example, even digital cameras are irrelevant, within 20 years of Kodak’s fall. The market around low- to mid-end stand-alone cameras had disappeared in favor of phones.
So the real lesson is not so much infinite growth like these tech CEOs believe in, the lesson is adaptability to a changing world and changing technology, which costs money in the form of research, development, and risk taking trying to set up production on products you’re not sure will sell, but might replace your current offerings.
Let’s all just make new companies that are unionized-cooperatives bringing all our coworkers into them
In this example that CEO isn’t needed
