• hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    43 minutes ago

    Real answer: because the CEO is the figurehead of the company. An AI can do exactly what a CEO can do except actually interacting with people. So the only necessary and “irreplaceable” job of the CEO is to meet with people and get them to make a deal or invest or whatever.

    That being said, I don’t think there’s any job an LLM can replace a human for. Human’s aren’t hired as next word predictors. Even the CEO has more to their decision making job than making decisions. Knowing what decisions to make is something the AI can’t do.

    CEOs are overpaid though. Their jobs aren’t hard and mostly what determines their success is luck.

    • oortjunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 minutes ago

      “Yes, an electronic brain,” said Frankie, “a simple one would suffice.”

      “A simple one!” wailed Arthur.

      “Yeah,” said Zaphod with a sudden evil grin, “you’d just have to program it to say What? and I don’t understand and Where’s the tea? Who’d know the difference?”

    • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Naw, MVP in 2 weeks that can write those company-wide emails they do, and then we work with the client and iterate in sprints.

  • Corelli_III@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Catching crime lords in hypocritical pretzel logic doesn’t work. The issue isn’t with their logic. The issue is with a society that allows itself to be captured by capitalism.

    • tourist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Kick me in the brain stem if I’m on the wrong track, but I feel like it’s by design

      In general,

      Everyone hates public officials taking bribes

      Everyone hates streaming services raising their subscription fees

      Everyone hates advertisements

      Everyone hates big pharma charging $1000 for a cancer treatment pill that costs 0.1c to manufacture

      The throughline is obvious, but I feel most people just take a neutral or dismissive (and sometimes aggressive) stance if you bring it up.

      It’s that cognitive dissonance that feels engineered.

      I don’t know how to fix that. Admittedly, I still need to do more reading.

      • Corelli_III@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I think our problem might be starting a slave empire on stolen land and then building a bunch of prisons instead of a society. Maybe next time, don’t be born 17 generations into a crumbling colonial slave empire. That’s what I’m going to try.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 hours 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.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    CEO is a political position, not a productive role. The job of the Chief Executive is to be a high level influencer with lenders, high level clients, and other business partners. For AIs to fill this role, they would need to be established as more influential than their human peers.

    While its certainly possible (and arguably the desired end result of Microsoft/Google/et al) to replace a C-level with an AI, the end result would be a machine that serves the interests of the operators (presumably Microsoft/Google/whomever) rather than the business for which it is providing the service.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

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

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 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.

      • vairse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 minutes ago

        Chances are the shareholders with enough power to sway things are… Other CEOs though

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        13 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.

    • Artisian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 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.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 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.

        • tlmcleod@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I think that’s more coincidental than actual solidarity. They all just happen to have the same goals - pursuit of personal net worth high score. I’m sure there’s some collusion between a few of them though.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Solidarity doesn’t have to mean they like have a club with a secret handshake. Their goals are aligned, and they tend to work towards those goals, even without explicit coordination. It’s rare to see anyone in the ownership class work against those interests. You don’t see a lot of the owners saying “we should give people more time off” or “we should let the workers have a say”. It’s pretty consistently “we should squeeze people for more money”. It makes the news when ownership is like “We’re going to pay people more”, and it doesn’t make the news when labor is like “i’ll just work a little more off the clock to catch up”.

            Contrast with labor, where people are often undermining their interests. Being anti-union, voting against regulations that would protect them from exploitation, giving away labor for free.

        • Artisian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          But CEO pay largely isn’t in conflict with labor; it’s in conflict with shareholders (namely, large scale investors). There are at least 3 fairly large groups of people who would all have to let the money run through their hands before labor sees a dime of current CEO pay. CEOs themselves (and, more broadly, C-suite), the shareholders (which you could subdivide by board-members vs hedge funds vs small investors), and governments (at various scales).

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 hours 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.

    • hornywarthogfart@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Might end up with more humanity in business decisions by replacing the empathy-devoid CEOs currently running things with something trained on a larger sample of people.

  • Artisian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    14 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 run a business OK exists, 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.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours 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.

  • RegularJoe@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

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

  • sampao@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

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

  • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours 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.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    12 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.