I don't think I was specifically seeking to contradict anything you said.
If it's cost-effective to replace you with a machine, then it's probably going to happen. You can present your shareholders with the nitty-gritty numbers and the result is given.
I was just pondering the idea that as you rise up the pyramid we still retain the idea that these people are irreplaceable.
If you read any corporate history, there's always somebody portrayed as the bad-guy who clung onto some random notion that then caused the failure - and conversely the good guy that saved the company.
You can boil this down a bit to statements like "Why don't we all own an Atari console today?"
(usual answer is that people at the top made made decisions, and bottom of the pyramid didn't matter).
A more modern example of "AI-CEO-wins" would be say... "Butterfly keyboards on Macs"
Data-mining reports that nobody likes them, and correct decision would be to revert to the previous standard.
This is seemingly about to happen after many years, many revisions, much expense and ridicule - and my postulated idea as to why this long saga happened, was because the decision was left to exceptionally well paid people, with vested personal interest.
If it's cost-effective to replace you with a machine, then it's probably going to happen. You can present your shareholders with the nitty-gritty numbers and the result is given.
I was just pondering the idea that as you rise up the pyramid we still retain the idea that these people are irreplaceable.
If you read any corporate history, there's always somebody portrayed as the bad-guy who clung onto some random notion that then caused the failure - and conversely the good guy that saved the company.
You can boil this down a bit to statements like "Why don't we all own an Atari console today?" (usual answer is that people at the top made made decisions, and bottom of the pyramid didn't matter).
A more modern example of "AI-CEO-wins" would be say... "Butterfly keyboards on Macs"
Data-mining reports that nobody likes them, and correct decision would be to revert to the previous standard.
This is seemingly about to happen after many years, many revisions, much expense and ridicule - and my postulated idea as to why this long saga happened, was because the decision was left to exceptionally well paid people, with vested personal interest.