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.
Loyalty lasts right up until the math says otherwise.
The math has never made sense for CEOs
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.
Several years ago I read an article that went in to great detail on how LLMs are perfectly poised to replace C-levels in corporations. I went on to talk about how they by nature of design essentially do the that exact thing off the bat, take large amounts of data and make strategic decisions based on that data.
I wish I could find it to back this up, but regardless ever since then, I’ve been waiting for this watershed moment to hit across the board…
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.
The funny part is that I can’t tell whether you’re talking about LLMs or the C-suite.
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.
Y’know, the whole “don’t dehumanize the poor biwwionaiwe’s :(((” works for like, nazis, because they weren’t almost all clinical sociopaths.
I think you’re getting caught up in semantics.
“Following a trend” is something a series of points on a grid can do.
I’d argue they do make strategic decisions, its just that the strategy is always increasing quarterly earnings and their own assets.
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
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.
You’re right. But then look at Musk. if anyone was ripe for replacement with AI, it’s him.
yet…
That’s part of why we hate them no?
Hate isn’t generally based on rational decision making.
Its inevitable.
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.
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
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.
Current Ai has no shot of being as smart as humans, it’s simply not sophisticated enough.
And that’s not to say that current llms aren’t impressive, they are, but the human brain is just on a whole different level.
And just to think about on a base level, LLM inference can run off a few gpus, roughly order of 100 billion transistors. That’s roughly on par with the number of neurons, but each neuron has an average of 10,000 connections, that are capable of or rewiring themselves to new neurons.
And there are so many distinct types of neurons, with over 10,000 unique proteins.
On top of there over a hundred neurotransmitters, and we’re not even sure we’ve identified them all.
And all of that is still connected to a system that integrates all of our senses, while current AI is pure text, with separate parts bolted onto it for other things.
The human brain is doing a lot of stuff that’s completely unrelated to “being intelligent.” It’s running a big messy body, it’s supporting its own biological activity, it’s running immune system operations for itself, and so forth. You can’t directly compare their complexity like this.
It turns out that some of the thinky things that humans did with their brains that we assumed were hugely complicated could be replicated on a commodity GPU with just a couple of gigabytes of memory. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that everything else we do is as complicated as we thought either.
Ive had too many beers to read that.
Should be way easier to replace a CEO. No need for a golden parachute, if the AI fails, you just turn it off.
But I’d imagine right now you have CEOs being paid millions and using an AI themselves. Worst of both worlds.
in all dialectical seriousness, if it appeases the capitalists, it will happen. “first they came with ai for the help desk…” kind of logic here. some sort of confluence of Idiocracy and The Matrix will be the outcome.
You mean dialectical whimsiness
Love that term dialectical seriousness, have to admit i had to look it up :)
Isn’t this sorta paradoxical? Like either ceos are actually worth what insane money they make, or a palm pilot could replace them, but somehow they are paid ridiculous amounts for…. What?
No, it’s not paradoxical. You are conflating time points.
I won’t debate the “value” of CEOs, but in this system, their value is subject to market conditions like any other. Human computers were valued much more before electrical computers were created. Aluminum was worth more than gold before a fast and cheap extraction process was invented.
You could not replace a CEO with a Palm pilot 10 years ago.
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.
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.
From what people on Lemmy say, a CEO (and board) isn’t there to do a good job they are there to be a fall guy if something goes wrong, protecting shareholders from prosecution. Can AI do that?
How do they take the fall exactly,“millions in a golden parachute, and high-fives on the way to next ceo job?” At least you could turn the AI off.
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.
AI will assess all risks and make a bet, if it fails it will have a fund available to compensate the losses.
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.
Evil companies will have evil AI
their decisions all seem very formulaic, and they could definitely be made faster if you just typed it into ChatGPT
?
I asked ChatGPT about 2 years ago to write a response from a CEO explaining that while it was their best financial year, they would be eliminating my department along with 500 workers, and no bonuses for the rest. It pumped out a nearly identical response as my CEO.
Subject: Q2 2023 Quarterly Update: Record-breaking Profits, Strategic Realignments, and Compensation Adjustments
Dear esteemed stakeholders,
I am thrilled to present to you the second-quarter update, brimming with noteworthy achievements and strategic developments that have significantly impacted our organization’s performance. Despite operating in a dynamic and highly competitive landscape, we have delivered outstanding financial results that surpass any previous decade’s records. I am excited to share these details and provide insight into the exceptional growth we have experienced in recent months.
Financial Highlights:
In Q2 2023, we witnessed a meteoric rise in our profitability, with net earnings reaching unprecedented heights, outperforming any comparable period over the past ten years. The diligent efforts of our teams, coupled with robust market conditions, synergistic acquisitions, and optimized cost structures, have paved the way for this remarkable achievement.
Strategic Realignment:
Our success can be primarily attributed to our relentless pursuit of strategic realignment initiatives across multiple fronts. By strategically refocusing our core business lines and leveraging our distinctive competencies, we have effectively capitalized on emerging market trends while fortifying our position as an industry leader.
Our investments in cutting-edge technology and digital transformation initiatives have empowered us to unlock new opportunities and drive operational efficiency. The implementation of data-driven analytics has yielded insightful decision-making capabilities, enabling us to optimize resource allocation and enhance overall productivity.
Product Portfolio Optimization:
Our product portfolio underwent a comprehensive review during Q2, resulting in strategic pruning and refocusing efforts. By prioritizing high-growth areas with maximum revenue potential and aligning our offerings with evolving customer needs, we have ensured a sharper competitive edge and amplified market penetration. This proactive approach has allowed us to streamline our operations while effectively positioning ourselves as a provider of innovative solutions.
Employee Recognition and Compensation Adjustments:
Regrettably, amidst these commendable financial achievements, it is imperative that we address a necessary adjustment to our compensation policies. While profits have soared, we have made the difficult decision not to award annual bonuses to our employees this year. This choice was made to safeguard the long-term sustainability and growth of our organization, considering the dynamic market conditions and the need for prudent financial management.
It is important to emphasize that this decision was not taken lightly, and we remain deeply committed to the well-being and development of our employees. Alternative avenues, such as performance-based incentives and recognition programs, will be explored to ensure ongoing motivation and engagement within our workforce. We firmly believe that nurturing a conducive work environment, coupled with career advancement opportunities, will continue to foster a culture of excellence and drive collective success.
Looking Forward:
Moving forward, we will remain steadfast in our commitment to driving sustainable growth, capitalizing on emerging market opportunities, and nurturing a resilient organizational culture. Our strategic initiatives will continue to prioritize innovation, operational excellence, and customer-centricity, ensuring our ability to adapt and thrive in an ever-changing business landscape.
I extend my deepest gratitude to each member of our organization, whose unwavering dedication and relentless pursuit of excellence have contributed to our resounding success. Together, we will navigate the evolving market dynamics and deliver sustainable value to our stakeholders.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
[Your Name] CEO, [Company Name]
It’s scary how much this reads like the emails I receive from $corporate_management
Try doing it now and compare it and see what it does differently.
You’re mixing up corporate personhood and the CEO’s own personhood. He isn’t the corporation. Ultimately, he’s just an employee. There’s no good reason for the board of directors to pay him if a machine can do a better job while costing less. I’m not sure why you might think that wouldn’t happen.
No but the corporation is the person, CEO handing it to AI which then becomes a person.
You might want to read more about corporate personhood. It doesn’t mean that the corporation is considered by the law to be a person, or that whoever or whatever performs the duties of the CEO is by definition a person. It means that a corporation, despite not being a person, has certain rights usually associated with people. For example, a person can own property or be sued. A cat cannot own property or be sued. A corporation is like a person rather than a cat in that it can also own property or be sued. There’s debate about exactly which rights should be granted to corporations, but the idea that a corporation has at least some minimal set of rights is centuries old and an essential part of the very definition of what a corporation is.
True but corporate personhood already gives the legal shell. If an AI is actually running the company’s decisions, wouldn’t that be the first time in practice that courts are forced to treat an AI’s choices as the will of a legal person? In effect, wouldn’t that be the first step toward AI being judged as a ‘person’ under law?
It’s what republicans need, yes
