I appreciate the reframing—really smart take—but I’d push back on one key point: cost of errors isn’t necessarily what makes CEOs safer than engineers—it’s accountability.
As others have pointed out, engineering mistakes lead to immediate, measurable fallout: you crash servers, leak user data, or break security. That’s real, visible risk. But if an LLM hallucinates a disastrous strategy, who’s left holding the bag? The board? The model vendor? Executives? That ambiguity makes it hard to fully trust LLMs with real decision-making power.
CEOs are expected to bear responsibility—publicly and privately. If a strategy fails, there’s someone to fire—clearly defined accountability. LLMs can offer brilliant synthesis and scenario generation, but they can’t be “fired,” nor can they take blame. They’d always be advisors, not agents.
Another thing: a large part of leadership isn’t strategy—it’s the human stuff: motivating teams, handling interpersonal dynamics, managing crises. That doesn’t look like prompt-and-response; it’s people work, messy and nuanced. LLMs can support it, sure—but lead it? Not yet.
And yes, the political barrier is hugely underestimated—CEOs are politically powerful. Very few voluntarily make themselves obsolete.
Hacker News
TL;DR: LLMs might be great at generating strategy—or helping write code—but they’re not suited to own the outcomes. Accountability, leadership, and human nuance still matter.
As others have pointed out, engineering mistakes lead to immediate, measurable fallout: you crash servers, leak user data, or break security. That’s real, visible risk. But if an LLM hallucinates a disastrous strategy, who’s left holding the bag? The board? The model vendor? Executives? That ambiguity makes it hard to fully trust LLMs with real decision-making power.
CEOs are expected to bear responsibility—publicly and privately. If a strategy fails, there’s someone to fire—clearly defined accountability. LLMs can offer brilliant synthesis and scenario generation, but they can’t be “fired,” nor can they take blame. They’d always be advisors, not agents.
Another thing: a large part of leadership isn’t strategy—it’s the human stuff: motivating teams, handling interpersonal dynamics, managing crises. That doesn’t look like prompt-and-response; it’s people work, messy and nuanced. LLMs can support it, sure—but lead it? Not yet.
And yes, the political barrier is hugely underestimated—CEOs are politically powerful. Very few voluntarily make themselves obsolete. Hacker News
TL;DR: LLMs might be great at generating strategy—or helping write code—but they’re not suited to own the outcomes. Accountability, leadership, and human nuance still matter.