Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

If A.I. is so fast and efficient, and CEOs are paid so much, why not replace CEOs with A.I.?

⁨238⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨RegularJoe@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨35⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨50⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The rich have class solidarity. They’re not going to casually fuck each other over like that.

    source
    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source
      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I don’t really buy this take. They have petty spats, noncompetitive practices, just like the rest of us. Seems like there are simpler explanations.

      source
      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Because 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.

    source
    • HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨51⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      the llc is a legal entity and has all those powers and even free speech now. no human needed.

      source
  • RegularJoe@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    For a publicly traded business, this could greatly benefit the share holder with a more efficient AI CEO to steer the ship.

    source
    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world ⁨55⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      Less sexual harassment lawsuits too

      source
  • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source
    • blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      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.

      source
      • khornechips@sh.itjust.works ⁨13⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

        Two things can be true, that’s all I’m saying.

        source
  • sampao@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Now there is an idea. But the money that the CEO would be paid would go to workers right? Right?!

    source
    • meco03211@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Anakin.jpg

      source
  • vane@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    What you do with money ? Give it to people so they stop working ? CEOs are needed so people earn enough money to survive but not enough to live or rebel against the system. Just like chickens. You cut chicken wings so they don’t fly away.

    source
  • zxqwas@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    You 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.

    source
    • Strider@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      We’re going inception style now, but then ceo would be even more fitting, don’t you think?

      source
    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      It doesn’t matter, so … the CEO is perfect application!

      source
  • hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Because the purpose of a CEO is wealth transfer. Controlling the company is purely incidental.

    source
    • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      This wasn’t particularly true all that long ago. Huge buyouts and benefits for CEOs are both quite recent phenomena. Shareholders had a much better split not that long ago, and the social/family dynamics haven’t had long to change so drastically.

      source
  • Triumph@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    You'd probably get fewer hallucinations.

    source
    • Poik@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      It is amazing how human CEOs manage to surpass a 100% hallucination rate.

      source
  • devolution@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I know. Right? The rich protect the rich. That’s why. They have their own union and you aren’t part of it.

    source
  • cloudless@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Because the first word of your question is “if”.

    source
  • Nemo@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Who’s going to make that decision? The CEO?

    source
    • False@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The 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.

      source
      • Nemo@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        then maybe they’d implement the AI CEO then just retire.

        I think this is the most realistic scenario. CEO outsources her workload to AI as much as possible while still collecting a paycheque.

        source
  • HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • slazer2au@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Because we know language models can’t run a business.

    www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1

    source
    • krashmo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      They can’t do any of this other shit either. That’s not stopping us from doing it

      source
  • Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Just set growth to 10%!

    source
  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source
    • shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨26⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      On top off all that, company culture flows from the top down. Tell me what you think of your company culture, I’ll tell you about your CEO. Also, imagine the sheer disgust of ultimately reporting to AI. People might have a few giggles at first, but moral would crash pretty quickly.

      source
  • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Every 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.

    source
  • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Because 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.

    source
  • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Because they’re the decision makers, why would they remove themselves from that position? Lol

    source