I think it’s more simple than you assume. From my limited experience (many stranger’s anecdotes and my team recently being fired literally because “the other (very different) production location is able to do it without a dedicated Quality Management team”) most employers / company chiefs just want to make more money or, at least, increase the perceived value so that being bought out becomes realistic and leaves them with more money. They don’t actually care if their product works well or efficient, as long as number go up. Maybe the original company founder does but how many companies are still there that have the founder for long-term in key decision making and without shareholders who kinda hold the real power and couldn’t care less if the company cleaned up oceans or burned children because to them it’s just one combination of letters that make them money?

As @lvxferre@mander.xyz suggested, the top management might not even understand that AI won’t help, so they think it will make a short- (savings due to firings) and long-term ( profit. And those that are very informed about AI understand, at the very least, that they can increase short-term profits by firing employees (thus saving on needing to pay salaries to pesky humans) under the guise of increasing efficiency.

So to top management it’s just a decision of “do I want more money now and in the future?” or “do I want more money now and maybe also trick idiots into buying us out before it goes belly-up?”

Lastly, I think you might ascribe more self-reflection ability to middle management than they have. I want to believe that most of them truly think they are a crucial part of making the company work, so they don’t even see that replacing humans with AI would make them obsolete and thus prone for firing.