Will CEOs eventually have to replace themselves with AI to please shareholders?
-
I guess I was being a bit over the top, the CEOs are the capitalists. I guess it’s possible they are doing their job with LLMs now, but just behind the scenes. Like, either they are worth what they are paid, or the system is broken AF and it doesn’t matter.
I just don’t see them being replaced in any meaningful way.
CEOs may not be the capitalists at the top of a particular food chain. The shareholding board is, for instance. They can be both but there are plenty of CEO level folks who could, with a properly convinced board, be replaced all nimbly bimbly and such.
-
They... don't make strategic decisions... That's part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.
You're right. But then look at Musk. if anyone was ripe for replacement with AI, it's him.
-
If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch? A board isn’t paying a CEO $20 million a year for tradition, they’re paying for results. If an AI can do the job cheaper and get better returns, investors will force it.
And since corporations are already treated as “people” under the law, replacing a human CEO with an AI isn’t just swapping a worker for a machine, it’s one “person” handing control to another.
That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselves, not because they want to, but because the system leaves them no choice. And AI would be considered a "person" under the law.
AI? Yes probably. Current AI? No. I do think we'll see it happen with an LLM and that company will probably flop. Shit how do you even prompt for that.
-
AI? Yes probably. Current AI? No. I do think we'll see it happen with an LLM and that company will probably flop. Shit how do you even prompt for that.
It'll take a few years but it progresses exponentially, it will get there.
-
I guess in theory there would be no need for a fall guy as AI would cover all angles.
But the fall guy is for things they know they shouldn't do. They aren't trying to only do the things they should.
-
It can do so even better than a human. They would just announce a patch for it
That's brilliant! So long as the AI company has a board to take the fall for any big AI mistakes.
-
But the fall guy is for things they know they shouldn't do. They aren't trying to only do the things they should.
Evil companies will have evil AI
-
CEOs may not be the capitalists at the top of a particular food chain. The shareholding board is, for instance. They can be both but there are plenty of CEO level folks who could, with a properly convinced board, be replaced all nimbly bimbly and such.
I guess, but they sure shovel plenty of money at say… Musk. So what? Is he worth a trillion? It seems the boards could trim a ton of money if ceos did nothing. Or they do lots and it’s all worth it. Who’s to say.
I just don’t see LLMs as the vehicle to unseat CEOs, or maybe I’m small minded idk.
-
If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch? A board isn’t paying a CEO $20 million a year for tradition, they’re paying for results. If an AI can do the job cheaper and get better returns, investors will force it.
And since corporations are already treated as “people” under the law, replacing a human CEO with an AI isn’t just swapping a worker for a machine, it’s one “person” handing control to another.
That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselves, not because they want to, but because the system leaves them no choice. And AI would be considered a "person" under the law.
No, because someone has to be the company's scapegoat... but if the ridiculous post-truth tendencies of some societies increase, then maybe "AI" will indeed gain "personhood", and in that case, maybe?
-
No, because someone has to be the company's scapegoat... but if the ridiculous post-truth tendencies of some societies increase, then maybe "AI" will indeed gain "personhood", and in that case, maybe?
I don't see any other future.
-
It'll take a few years but it progresses exponentially, it will get there.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It progresses logistically; eventually it'll plateau and there's no reason to believe that plateau will come after "can do everything a human can.". See: https://www.promptlayer.com/research-papers/have-llms-hit-their-limit
-
Ive had too many beers to read that.
-
Buddam tsssss! I too enjoy making fun of big business CEOs as mindless trend-followers. But even "following a trend" is a strategy attributable to a mind with reasoning ability that makes a choice. Now the quality of that reasoning or the effectiveness of that choice is another matter.
As tempting as it is, dehumanizing people we find horrible also risks blinding us to our own capacity for such horror as humans.
I think you're getting caught up in semantics.
"Following a trend" is something a series of points on a grid can do.
-
I think you're getting caught up in semantics.
"Following a trend" is something a series of points on a grid can do.
-
Sure, but we don't know where that plateau will come and until we get close to it progress looks approximately exponential.
We do know that it's possible for AI to reach at least human levels of capability, because we have an existence proof (humans themselves). Whether stuff based off of LLMs will get there without some sort of additional new revolutionary components, we can't tell yet. We won't know until we actually hit that plateau.
-
They... don't make strategic decisions... That's part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.
That's part of why we hate them no?
Hate isn't generally based on rational decision making.
-
They... don't make strategic decisions... That's part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.
I'd argue they do make strategic decisions, its just that the strategy is always increasing quarterly earnings and their own assets.
-
That's brilliant! So long as the AI company has a board to take the fall for any big AI mistakes.
AI will assess all risks and make a bet, if it fails it will have a fund available to compensate the losses.
-
If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch? A board isn’t paying a CEO $20 million a year for tradition, they’re paying for results. If an AI can do the job cheaper and get better returns, investors will force it.
And since corporations are already treated as “people” under the law, replacing a human CEO with an AI isn’t just swapping a worker for a machine, it’s one “person” handing control to another.
That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselves, not because they want to, but because the system leaves them no choice. And AI would be considered a "person" under the law.
Y'all are all missing the real answer. CEOs have class solidarity with shareholders. Think about about how they all reacted to the death of the United health care CEO. They'll never get rid of them because they're one of them. Rich people all have a keen awareness of class consciousness and have great loyalty to one another.
Us? We're expendable. They want to replace us with machines that can't ask for anything and don't have rights. But they'll never get rid of one of their own. Think about how few CEOs get fired no matter how poor of a job they do.
P.S. Their high pay being because of risk is a myth. Ever heard of a thing called the golden parachute? CEOs never pay for their failures. In fact when they run a company into the ground, they're usually the ones that receive the biggest payouts. Not the employees.
-
Y'all are all missing the real answer. CEOs have class solidarity with shareholders. Think about about how they all reacted to the death of the United health care CEO. They'll never get rid of them because they're one of them. Rich people all have a keen awareness of class consciousness and have great loyalty to one another.
Us? We're expendable. They want to replace us with machines that can't ask for anything and don't have rights. But they'll never get rid of one of their own. Think about how few CEOs get fired no matter how poor of a job they do.
P.S. Their high pay being because of risk is a myth. Ever heard of a thing called the golden parachute? CEOs never pay for their failures. In fact when they run a company into the ground, they're usually the ones that receive the biggest payouts. Not the employees.
Loyalty lasts right up until the math says otherwise.
