RegularJoeIf A.I. is so fast and efficient, and CEOs are paid so much, why not replace CEOs with A.I.?
For a publicly traded business, this could greatly benefit the share holder with a more efficient AI CEO to steer the ship.
FenrirIII
zxqwasYou would not want to use AI anywhere it matters. Only in places where it does not matter if you get it right the first, second or even the third time, like customer support.
It doesn’t matter, so … the CEO is perfect application!
Now there is an idea. But the money that the CEO would be paid would go to workers right? Right?!
CEO’s are already using AI as a tool to help them understand their companies by dumping their company data into these models as a way to understand their companies.
I just don’t see any company creating an AI to replace a CEO in its entirety, yet.
cloudlessThe rich have class solidarity. They’re not going to casually fuck each other over like that.
But they’re controlled by shareholders and why do shareholders want individual nut jobs running a company when and AI can do it. Not saying we’re any where close to AI that can do this. But the idea is neat. CEO of these publicly traded companies seems like the first job that should be axed.
I assume rich people often keep enough shares to control who sits on the board, and thus who is the CEO. There’s a lot of people sitting on multiple boards, folks know each other, blah blah blah.
Also many shareholders aren’t really involved. I don’t even know how it works if you own shares through Vanguard or something. I’ve never been asked to vote on company policy.
From what I’ve seen in start-up land, leadership is a lot of in-group bro times. It’s all gut feel. Shouldn’t expect rational, honest, decisions from them.
You should be getting letters or emails about upcoming shareholder meetings and proxy votes. If not, that’s a problem.
not_IOIt’s one of the most rationale things there is
I would be an for new regulation that changed that. In order to go public you cannot have a majority shareholder. I won’t pretend I know what I’m talking about. But my gut says if you’re going public you wish your business to grow to a point that it’ll have large impacts to a good chunk of people and so there should be more democratic decision making in places including adding people local to these businesses in as stake holders.
ArtisianI don’t really buy this take. They have petty spats, noncompetitive practices, just like the rest of us. Seems like there are simpler explanations.
Solidarity doesn’t mean they’re all in love and never squabble. But it does mean that they will prioritize their class’ interests, especially if it’s in conflict with labor.
I think that’s more coincidental than actual solidarity. They all just happen to have the same goals - pursuit of personal net worth high score. I’m sure there’s some collusion between a few of them though.
Solidarity doesn’t have to mean they like have a club with a secret handshake. Their goals are aligned, and they tend to work towards those goals, even without explicit coordination. It’s rare to see anyone in the ownership class work against those interests. You don’t see a lot of the owners saying “we should give people more time off” or “we should let the workers have a say”. It’s pretty consistently “we should squeeze people for more money”. It makes the news when ownership is like “We’re going to pay people more”, and it doesn’t make the news when labor is like “i’ll just work a little more off the clock to catch up”.
Contrast with labor, where people are often undermining their interests. Being anti-union, voting against regulations that would protect them from exploitation, giving away labor for free.
MushuChupacabraEvery one of us is utterly replaceable, including the billionaires and multi-billionaires.
For all the status quo that they push for, they don’t actually do anything special.
You could take the average billionaire, strip them of all their worth and hand it over to some millionaire, and basically nothing would change as far as the planet is concerned.
This is not a scenario where we are all NPCs to their game. We are all players, but more to the point, they are as expendable and interchangeable as we are.
Because they’re the decision makers, why would they remove themselves from that position? Lol
DevolutionI know. Right? The rich protect the rich. That’s why. They have their own union and you aren’t part of it.
Because we know language models can’t run a business.
Because the purpose of a CEO is wealth transfer. Controlling the company is purely incidental.
ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠The board who determines their pay for a public company. For a private company whoever owns the company - if that’s the CEO then maybe they’d implement the AI CEO then just retire.
For a publicly owned company the CEO is in the role because the Board hired them. The Board wants money but doesn’t have the attention span to run anything themselves so they get a person who can steer the ship in The Market. A bot doesn’t plan, it only reacts. That’s an interim CEO at best but not someone who has to approve budgets, product design/experience, and run the people side of things. Plus a boy hallucination could be devastating and no one would know until it’s too late.
AI just doesn’t have a place.
SomeonelolBecause deep down the shareholders and executives know the company will lose money if an AI CEO is in charge. AI can’t even take orders in a drive through ffs.
AI is currently really bad with business decisions. Like laughably so. There have been several small attempts, say letting an LLM manage a vending machine. I believe they’ve all flopped. Compare to performance in image creation/editing and programming performance (where, on measurables, they do relatively well). When an AI that could do this OK, you should expect to see it happen.
CEO’s are paid so much primarily because the turn to paying them in stocks. This changed because of pay-caps for executives (so to compete for CEOS, companies offered stocks). The idea was that this would align their incentives with the shareholders. Unfortunately, this has lead to a lot of extremely short term company policy by CEOs, spiking stock value to cash out.
Get out of here with your sensible economic logic. The answer is obviously because CEOs and shareholders are catagorically evil, and make all their descisions with the sole intent of making my life miserable.
Two things can be true, that’s all I’m saying.
PoikBecause an AI doesn’t have legal standing. It can’t own a company, close contracts, get loans, hire people nor can it sue others. It can at best act as a representative of a real CEO. There’s still a human signing on the dotted line
It also doesn’t come with daddies money and contacts to set up a startup and call investors.
the llc is a legal entity and has all those powers and even free speech now. no human needed.
Its likely the only use case that would actually pay off and it makes sense as the board of directors can have it made and maybe even do a lot of chief and vp stuff.
i said back when people first started talking about AI replacing workers… if there’s one job that can easily be replaced by AI, it’s a fucking CEO.
Might end up with more humanity in business decisions by replacing the empathy-devoid CEOs currently running things with something trained on a larger sample of people.
MarshezezzThere was a study on that I remember about a year ago that seemed to get buried real fast
Catching crime lords in hypocritical pretzel logic doesn’t work. The issue isn’t with their logic. The issue is with a society that allows itself to be captured by capitalism.
touristKick me in the brain stem if I’m on the wrong track, but I feel like it’s by design
In general,
Everyone hates public officials taking bribes
Everyone hates streaming services raising their subscription fees
Everyone hates advertisements
Everyone hates big pharma charging $1000 for a cancer treatment pill that costs 0.1c to manufacture
The throughline is obvious, but I feel most people just take a neutral or dismissive (and sometimes aggressive) stance if you bring it up.
It’s that cognitive dissonance that feels engineered.
I don’t know how to fix that. Admittedly, I still need to do more reading.
I think our problem might be starting a slave empire on stolen land and then building a bunch of prisons instead of a society. Maybe next time, don’t be born 17 generations into a crumbling colonial slave empire. That’s what I’m going to try.
UnderpantsWeevilCEO is a political position, not a productive role. The job of the Chief Executive is to be a high level influencer with lenders, high level clients, and other business partners. For AIs to fill this role, they would need to be established as more influential than their human peers.
While its certainly possible (and arguably the desired end result of Microsoft/Google/et al) to replace a C-level with an AI, the end result would be a machine that serves the interests of the operators (presumably Microsoft/Google/whomever) rather than the business for which it is providing the service.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 You’d have to be able to program the AI to do a job so the first thing is figuring out what the hell a CEO actually does.
No_EponymSchedule meetings, attend meeting, tell others to do stuff. Profit.
“Yes, an electronic brain,” said Frankie, “a simple one would suffice.”
“A simple one!” wailed Arthur.
“Yeah,” said Zaphod with a sudden evil grin, “you’d just have to program it to say What? and I don’t understand and Where’s the tea? Who’d know the difference?”
Regrettable_incidentIt’s gotta be said, Zaphod kind of had a point there.