Hacker News Reader

Comment by brettgriffin | Hacker News Reader

> but I'm of the opinion that CEO's don't do a whole lot.

Rather, you just don't understand what CEOs in large public companies actually do. You're comparing them to earlier stage CEOs, who can be more hands on.

When running a public company of a quarter million people, the CEO's responsibility starts to look more like an asset manager responsible for a $4 trillion dollar book.

And no - nobody wants that role replaced by an LLM.

View on HN

Just invest in a reasonably diverse index fund ( or a few). This is actually the optimal drama free way to go for most.

In the long run nobody out performs consistently anyway. We all get hit due to market events.

You may be giving CEOs much more credit than is due. And for all that they actually do, the outperformer is a rarity not the norm.

LLM could certainly fit this. Particularly when trained with all the MBA nonsense education in the world. It wouldn’t be the end of the world and it wouldn’t be substantially better/worse. But it would be cheaper.

I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Which companies make up the index funds if (most) CEOs liquidated their companies and invested in index funds? And how would they liquidate at anything close to their valuation without being priced based on their future expectations?

I don’t think they meant it literally. They were responding to the comment that their job was “like” managing a portfolio of investments. And in that respect the strategy of diversifying “like” with an index fund seemingly appealed to the commenter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com