233
Will CEOs eventually have to replace themselves with AI to please shareholders? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 1 year ago (15 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The funny part is that I can't tell whether you're talking about LLMs or the C-suite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Y’know, the whole “don’t dehumanize the poor biwwionaiwe’s :(((” works for like, nazis, because they weren’t almost all clinical sociopaths.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Lol the point about "don't dehumanize" has nothing to do about them or feeling bad for them. They can fuck right off. It's about us not pretending these aren't human monsters, as if being human makes us inherently good, as if our humanity somehow makes us inherently above doing monstrous things. No, to be human is to have the capacity for doing great good and for doing the monstrously terrible.

    Nazis aren't monsters because they're inhuman, they're monsters because of it. Other species on the planet might overhunt, displace, or cause depopulation through inadvertent ecological change, but only humanity commits genocide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They do indeed make strategic decisions, just only in favor of the short term profits of shareholders. It’s “strategy” that a 6 yr old could execute, but strategy nonetheless

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is closer to what I mean by strategy and decisions: https://matthewdwhite.medium.com/i-think-therefore-i-am-no-llms-cannot-reason-a89e9b00754f

    LLMs can be helpful for informing strategy, and simulating strings of words that may can be perceived as a strategic choice, but it doesn't have it's own goal-oriented vision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •