Instead of looking for other avenues for growth, though, PwC found that executives are worried about falling behind by not leaning into AI enough.
These are the people in charge of the economy.
Instead of looking for other avenues for growth, though, PwC found that executives are worried about falling behind by not leaning into AI enough.
These are the people in charge of the economy.
Tech CEOs are a cancer on society and the planet. Ruining everything just to make fake numbers go higher.
Tech CEOs are a cancer on society and the planet. Ruining everything just to make fake numbers go higher.
The alternative is running everything by committee, which isn't always practical.
You can have a single person in charge without them having the title "CEO".
Making your title CEO is also basically accepting a lot of the cultural baggage that comes with the term.
It's sad how few of you have taken the time to research or attempt to start a business. Of any sort.
People aren't evil for selling a service and registering it as a corporation which often requires a CFO and a CEO/President, even if the business has only a couple people. A lot of these businesses struggle financially just as much as any welfare recipient.
Do you think the only people who aren't evil are the non-industrious? It comes across as pathetic parasitic envy.
I hope we find a way to cure it
Luigi found a pretty good solution.
But, all jokes aside, the best solution is to start taxing these fuckers as hard as possible.
But, to meaningfully tax them, we need a government that they don't own.
What we really need is to speedrun evolution, and reach the next step sooner, where greed is no longer a factor and things are more globalistic, etc. You know, something sensible. Otherwise, it's just a cycle that repeats, even with people like Luigi appearing every now and then, and society cheering them on. The next cycle is behind the corner, at any time. We have to break the cycle with radical changes to human behavior and motivations in general.
Evolution doesn't have "steps".
Evolutionary changes take millennia to happen. Even if you speed run things it will still be centuries before there's a change. You could try to manually curate genetic changes, but we've tried that, it was called Eugenics and led to Nazis.
What we really need to do is accept that humans are still animals, and have all kinds of flaws due to our animal natures. We need to come up with ways of accepting and working with our animal natures. Males are inevitably going to try to do things to attract female attention so that they can "mate". So, maybe try to make it so that the things that work are taking care of needy people, rather than driving a big pickup truck or shooting a gun. Or, in the case of CEOs, accumulating absurd amounts of money.
When we have the potential to reach post-scarcity, scarcity will become artificial solely for the purpose of wielding influence or expressing power.
They keep saying LLMs will replace jobs. Maybe we replace their jobs and just see how it goes?
Rich people: Debunking the idea that the rich are the smartest since about 10,000 BCE.
And a granny state to bail them out if they lose all their money at the casino.
I'm starting to think that most "business" leaders have the skills of a Trump. It's all puffery.
Have you ever talked to a CEO? Like, sit down and talk face to face? Their are dumb as rocks. They are dumb as rocks and make all the money, and just move around from company to company, running them into the ground.
Yes. Yes I have. And I agree with you. The "starting to think" is an old Norm McDonald trope.
Yes. My last 3 were excellent businessmen and treated employees exceptionally well.
The one before that was a buffoon, but that was a tiny 13-person company. Our main vendor said, "He's a man who has found great success despite himself."
All CEOs need to be [redacted]
Maybe I'm just too close to the non-profit side of things to see it as a simple binary.
"Non-profit" is a tax classification, not a description of their business motives. I'm not saying that all non-profits are bad. They definitely help people. But many are absolutely profit-driven, with their CEOs making a shitload of money. CEOs, by and large, profit off the exploited labor of their employees.
I work in IT, and the accuracy of "The IT Crowd" when it comes to management is scary. How they get anything done is beyond me.
During americas “great” years a lot of the research and development was guided by long term USA policy. We are no longer guided by any sense of what’s to come. It’s a greedy grab all free-for-all. No rules no restrictions, just have fun and make lots of money.
If trump can graduate with a IVY league degree, that says a lot about the (trogolydite) IVY league grads.
We said the same thing about bush! Clearly they lost their luster damn near a century ago.
Ivy League schools were never about education. They've always about making connections with other elites.
Ivy league degrees are only impressive if you're poor. Any idiot multimillionaire or above can buy one for themselves.
Those who advocate for AI the most are the ones who understand it the least.
CEOs aren't in the positions they hold because they're qualified to lead corporations. They're there solely to figure out the best way to exploit workers legally, and illegally without getting caught. Replacing the workforce with LLMs is all they care about. Makes that job a million times easier, even if it isn't working.
An anecdote in agreement:
The CEO of my company left in September 2025. For years leading up to that, there were 3-4 layoffs/riffs of approx. 5% reductions (edit: yearly reductions). Never hired more US employees except for VP and C-level until we became very top-heavy. What jobs they do replace are primarily India and some in Argentina, many are contractors. They "cook the books" by avoiding taxes and "creatively" avoiding reporting gains/losses due to having a large amount of contractors. 2025 ended up losing a ton of customers due to churn (i.e. leaving or not renewing contracts). Most of our customera are US or North America-based and the contractor teams have such high turnover that customers are sick of us not supporting them well anymore.
Know where that former CEO is now? An AI startup.
Well a CEO sees something that just generates a wall of text without soul and a tenuous connection to facts, but overwhelmingly confident? As good as the typical CEO then so must be good at everything.
Hang on tho they also have the job of figuring out how to trash the environent without getting caught
And that's why the (imo) wrong title of AI is so bad. They don't care and think it IS intelligence and kinks (which are objective attributes of llm) can be worked out.
The next big thing is NI: natural intelligence! Replace you hallucinating AI with a person that can solve problems without hallucinating (usually)!
Ah man I can’t wait for the advertising to pick up on this.
“Has AI crapped the bed again? Here at “local store” we have genuine authentic humans to interact with”
A car dealership here has started running podcast ads to that effect. Kinda rides the line between "we're your local car dealer" and "we're actually people".
Where I’m at there’s a bank running adds along the lines of:
Other banks: (nerdy boring voice) “we could start an investment plan into thiscoin or thatcoin,… (list of puns on bitcoins)”
Our bank: (normal voice)“So how’s it been? What can I do for you today?”
Love it
Revolutionary
Albertatech did this as a skit. It's great.
Oh geez no one could have known that.
Instead of looking for other avenues for growth, though, PwC found that executives are worried about falling behind by not leaning into AI enough.
“A small group of companies are already turning AI into measurable financial returns, whilst many others are still struggling to move beyond pilots,” said PwC global chairman Mohamed Kande in a statement. “That gap is starting to show up in confidence and competitiveness, and it will widen quickly for those that don’t act.”
PwC also pointed out that most companies were lacking the “AI foundations, such as clearly defined road maps and sufficient levels of investment” to realize a return.
And I imagine the only reason I'm drowning is that I didn't bring enough gallons of their energy drink into the sea with me. Wow.
A small group of companies are already turning AI into measurable financial returns
Who, other than companies selling AI to other companies?
Who, other than companies selling AI to other companies?
I'm sure that's what they're talking about.
I haven't seen any company selling end users AI at any price that looks like it could actually turn a profit.
It feels so very bubble.
You can’t usually replace people with AI per se, but there is a lot of routine work you can do more efficiently with the help of AI. And that in the end reduces needed staff.
A surprising percentage of that routine work that can be machine assisted is already automated. Even an agentic AI LLM doesn't do anything a clever bash script couldn't. (And bash does it without hallucinations.)
So the opportunity is that a we can automate things that were not worth automating, before.
But the challenge is that anything with crazy good returns on efficiency is likely to already have been automated better.
So we have a really expensive tool hunting for huge efficiency gains among the scraps leftover from earlier better automation solutions.
top 97 comments