In some fields, I think that is much truer than others. The social and practical barriers to becoming a top footballer are low - it is about talent that can be assessed fairly simply. On the other hand, at the top level, like a lot of very, very highly paid work, the societal value seems pretty limited. The market may not make those sorts of judgements, but that doesn't mean we can't judge the market system as lacking, by human standards, for that.

What people are maybe concerned about more is that if you are unexceptional you can do very well just by coming from the right place - there are plenty of examples of that too. Equally, there's a lot of talent wasted because hard-working, gifted people can't overcome irrational barriers in the market.

Across society we want as many people as possible to contribute as much value as possible (and most people, by definition, are not exceptional). A problem I think we have is that too many aren't incentivized to give their best, because they've worked out there's not much point other than altruism, and there's a smaller number for whom there is no need because their success is baked in.



Yeah, their mate, and the favour will no doubt be reciprocated.

Look, I think this comes down to a difference in perception. You think these guys are the best of the best, because otherwise they wouldn't be at the top, so QED. I think a fair proportion of them are... mediocrities who have benefited from a broken system, would be harsh... but nothing special, and easily interchangeable with other competent people. There's the odd visionary I'm sure, there's much more opacity than with football. You can see in real-time why a football team is successful and who is contributing what. And under-performing players are dropped.

The oversight of executive pay by non-executive directors and large shareholders, doesn't seem to work to me, from the little I've seen and read. And, intuitively, it doesn't seem like it should.

I agree with much of your first point - we don't invest and challenge our people - the ridiculous idea that someone shouldn't progress because they are too valuable in their current role happens all the time. We prefer someone else to do the hard lifting for us and we get the finished article - especially for overseas. It is no wonder we don't get the best out of our people. Staff turnover is so expensive.

Whilst I would agree with you will always get some CEO's that are less than brilliant that shouldn't hold be the remunerations of those that are - the sky should be limit on their earnings potential. A good CEO is cheap - like a good sales person.

I broadly agree. And even when I talk about more progressive taxation, I'm not advocating punitive, self-defeating levels.

The key thing is that the market is as open as possible to talent.

And then, a point you've raised a couple of times, how is 'good' judged? Share price seems logical, because the shareholders are the owners and it is easily measured. But then what is a sensible time frame? In some ways, it'd be most just to judge executives over periods longer than some of their tenures, but that isn't practical. So maybe a buy-back to immediately boost the share price appeals more than medium-term investment that would be more valuable. Or maybe the shareholders themselves don't plan on sticking around that long and would prefer the quicker buck.

If we could give an AI a list of priorities for delivering corporate success, I wonder how much they would differ from those of a human CEO?

Given that the AI is programmed by humans and takes human inputs I would suggest quite similar. For me and my business people are what make the difference and those hundreds of daily human interactions are what separate top businesses from average ones. This is even more key the higher up the ladder you go.

If we assume the share price is a predictor of future growth then I would agree but there are many high quality CEO's working in unfashionable industries that don't get the interest of say tech firms. For me its the robustness of the business to withstand set backs, will its cashflows enable it keep going when the market might go against it? Does the business have an appropriate structure, is it well invested etc there are many ways you can judge the performance of a CEO.

I don’t mean a programmable robot, but a genuine (currently hypothetical) sentient AI, free from human desires - including the desire for personal status and remuneration.

Your priorities - positive human interactions, robustness, appropriately structured - all seem nice and sensible. What is interesting to me is what is missing from the list that often seem to be among the non-brochure/prospectus version of corporate priorities.

so, no sense of self, achievement, desire, ambition?

a very sterile world, and not really an example of evolution. But then evolution is subjective.

IR80 wrote:so, no sense of self, achievement, desire, ambition? a very sterile world, and not really an example of evolution. But then evolution is subjective. You don't think selflessness and equanimity are useful qualities for optimal performance of this role? The danger, I reckon, is when somebody tells it save the environment and it starts exterminating us. Hopefully it'll be smart enough to read between the lines, and investor relations would still know to put an optimistic spin on information and it'll ensure that HR is aware that it is there to protect the company first and employees second. I'm thinking of something like the Minds in the Culture series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture While made-up, they are interesting and entertaining. Does a post-scarcity future, managed by hyperintelligent AIs, appeal hypothetically? Or would the lack of economic competition and status make it feel sterile, d'you reckon?

IR80 wrote:so, no sense of self, achievement, desire, ambition? a very sterile world, and not really an example of evolution. But then evolution is subjective. You don't think selflessness and equanimity are useful qualities for optimal performance of this role? The danger, I reckon, is when somebody tells it save the environment and it starts exterminating us. Hopefully it'll be smart enough to read between the lines, and investor relations would still know to put an optimistic spin on information and it'll ensure that HR is aware that it is there to protect the company first and employees second. I'm thinking of something like the Minds in the Culture series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture While made-up, they are interesting and entertaining. Does a post-scarcity future, managed by hyperintelligent AIs, appeal hypothetically? Or would the lack of economic competition and status make it feel sterile, d'you reckon?

Mild Rover wrote:You don't think selflessness and equanimity are useful qualities for optimal performance of this role? The danger, I reckon, is when somebody tells it save the environment and it starts exterminating us. Hopefully it'll be smart enough to read between the lines, and investor relations would still know to put an optimistic spin on information and it'll ensure that HR is aware that it is there to protect the company first and employees second. I'm thinking of something like the Minds in the Culture series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture While made-up, they are interesting and entertaining. Does a post-scarcity future, managed by hyperintelligent AIs, appeal hypothetically? Or would the lack of economic competition and status make it feel sterile, d'you reckon? AI pipe dreams and fantasy, not a future we are likely to see, nor one I want.

Mild Rover wrote:You don't think selflessness and equanimity are useful qualities for optimal performance of this role? The danger, I reckon, is when somebody tells it save the environment and it starts exterminating us. Hopefully it'll be smart enough to read between the lines, and investor relations would still know to put an optimistic spin on information and it'll ensure that HR is aware that it is there to protect the company first and employees second. I'm thinking of something like the Minds in the Culture series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture While made-up, they are interesting and entertaining. Does a post-scarcity future, managed by hyperintelligent AIs, appeal hypothetically? Or would the lack of economic competition and status make it feel sterile, d'you reckon? AI pipe dreams and fantasy, not a future we are likely to see, nor one I want.

What sort of future do you envision and want?

One where survival of the fittest prevails, the best person for a job doing the job, pretty much as things are now.