Then again, my opinion on organized religion is the same, without the symbiotic aspect.
Collective intelligence, or maybe a hivemind though that seems a step too far, seems like a closer description than AI. From TFA, I'm not sure I actually agree that 'we can certainly agree that companies are "artificial" in the sense that humans made them' is the fundamental aspect of what 'artificial' means in terms of AI. I would argue that artificial here means more like artifact rather than simply human-made. Companies are not embodied in any artifact, whereas I think AI will surely have to be. Companies are diffuse and reliant upon actual humans to do the thinking, even if no single human "thinks" for the company. AI will rather be intelligence that is not natural and embodied in an artifact (and probably made by humans). Or many artifacts, as there could be collective AI as well.
Anyway, interesting idea. I'll have to think more about it.
Generally, if it doesn't make profit short term or long term, it is unacceptable, and here, Jack Dorsey essentially wants to kill Twitter as a company, so of course he can't do that. For the same reason I won't let the mechanic I hired to maintain my car destroy it instead just because he thinks my car is bad for the environment or something. He may be right, but it is not what I paid him for. And if I discover he actually destroyed my car, not only he won't get paid, but there are good chances I will sue him.
Dorsey situation different.
Said no-one ever about public exchange investors. Why do you think Michael Dell had to take Dell private to restructure it? Jobs had more latitude since Apple was "90 days from bankrupcy" when he returned.
Michael Dell has the won the battle for control of the computer company that he created, after shareholders backed his $24.8bn (£15.7bn) offer to take Dell private and revive the struggling business away from the incessant pressure of Wall Street.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/12/michael-d...
The point is that the CEO works for the owners of the company. (In a publicly traded company that's typically shareholders represented by a board.) To keep their job the CEO just needs to be able to convince the owner(s) that they're making the right decisions.
In the case of Apple, most owners (shareholders) trusted Steve Jobs' decision to cannibalize existing product lines with new ones.
In the case of Twitter, I am skeptical that the owners would have trusted Jack enough to let him transition Twitter to an open protocol without some kind of long-term monetization plan.
In TFA Dorsey briefly describes his vision of what to do after taking Twitter private. He is speaking to who would become the effective owners. In the car repair analogy it is as if a rental van was in a fender bender. The rental co can get it fixed with a normal bodyshop or has an option to sell it.
Down the street there is a body shop with a vision. The owner of that shop knows a lady who wants to wants to start a food van and is telling her, "I know a dinged rental van you can get at a discount and when we finish conversion it will look better than new."
As no one is making this argument, it's rather hard to continue the discussion past that point but I will try. I agree that the CEO can actively seek out new owners that more closely match the CEO's vision, but even then they are working for the existing owners (who must agree to sell) until it is sold, at which point they will be working for the new owners.
Like really, if we accept that proposition how would society function? Youd have people in charge of tens to hundreds of thousands of peoples daily lives and output who just pass the buck on any issues because they got orders? Is that in anyway functionality different from a monarchy?
(Also, you've unfairly maligned monarchies. Monarchies are not by their nature despotic, though they can be as can other forms of government. And if you want to make the analogy, then most companies are closer to monarchies than to democratic republics in the sense that at most companies, you don't have a say in who is CEO, for example.)
>>>> It’s pretty hard for even CEOs to control direction sometimes
>>> A CEO is just an employee
>> A CEO is not “just an employee”
> That seems like an uncharitable interpretation
No, it is a straightforward interpretation using that person's own words. It is not uncharitable to take someone at face value.
1) Exactly as it does. You're looking at it.
2) Yeah, that's pretty much how it's going. Like, half the time they pass the buck even when there's no-one "above" them and they were the originator of all the orders, and somehow that seems to work out much better for them than one might hope. Did you see that last presidency the US just had?
3) More like feudal aristocracy in general, not just a monarchy, except that the serfs get to pick which of several bad lords they'll serve, but you're on the right track.
Welcome to the first steps toward left-libertarianism.
That batch of messages in isolation are really promising.
I don't know. I would like to hope it is more than just image clean up.