I am writing on a longer piece on the current state of AI. But I want to discuss one thought of mine already.

It was triggered by news like this one:

https://www.the-independent.com/tech/mark-zuckerberg-ai-ceo-bot-b2943792.html

My personal theory is that AI is an attempt of the big tech CEOs to achieve some kind of immortality.

They know their bodies will eventually die. But they believe they are so brilliant, that humanity deserves them to persist in the form of a specifically trained AI that implements a bot persona of them.

They will attempt to pass their fortune to this bot identity. This will take shape in the form of a foundation (which also saves tax).

P.S. The longer piece is here: https://infosec.exchange/@masek/116295320755996705

Mark Zuckerberg builds AI CEO to help him run Meta

Tech giant’s tools include ‘Second Brain’ and an internal messaging board for AI bots

The Independent
@masek Did you read "Fall; or, Dodge in Hell" from Neal Stephenson (2019)? The technology used is a bit different, but the idea of a digital afterlife for billionaires is spelled out there.
@masek This will probably work as incedibly well as his Metaverse did ... 😄

@masek

If this is true, they are infinitely more stupid than I already assumed. I must admit, I cannot imagine a person to be this stupid, it is beyond my stupidity scale.

@HaraldKi See https://infosec.exchange/@masek/116295320755996705 for a more detailed analysis.

I have pulled that thought from my more in depth analysis it felt like a loose end there. But AI is like a literal siren song for managers.

@masek CEOs are probably the best jobs to be replaced by AI.. narrating marketing slides on a stage and spewing hot air into any microphone that's pointed their way, while cashing in hundreds of millions$ for it.. a well made shell script could do that cheaper.

@WooShell I would phrase that differently:

  • CEO is the job that gets the highest perceived value from AI.
  • I wouldn't trust any AI with pocket money, even less a company budget. So I don't see any CEO in danger.

The discrepancy between both statements is IMHO part of the observed problem.