Submitted 1 day ago by sturger@sh.itjust.works to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Tech CEOs have this wet dream where they just speak into a microphone, “Create my product” and employees will no longer be needed. So… if it becomes that easy, why will Wall Street need tech CEOs?
have they not seen idiocracy, the AI end up the ones controlling society, making decisions.
Because CEO is a complete bullshit job that works as a de facto caste system like 90% of management roles.
If they actually added any value and thats why they were hired? Sure, be scared. They’re not hired to add value though, so they’re not.
CEOs are the easiest to replace with ai. And all you need to do is have it commit sexual harassment every once in an awhile and it will be a perfect replacement.
Hey thats not true. You’d also have to feed them a prompt about how they can space out enacting a fucking idiotic idea over 6 meetings.
Who do you think is telling the CEO’s to go full steam ahead on ai? The company I work for openly mocked ai…and then the stock price dropped. The investors said it was because they weren’t investing in ai. Even CEO’s, overpaid clowns though they may be, report to wall st.
They’re talking about replacing all their workers.
The owners will still be ghouls.
Because they already don’t need a CEO to operate…
The entire point of a C- suite is to have a room full of fall guys for the board.
That’s it.
Not only this, but they all sit on each other’s boards. There’s essentially one big mega corporation:
That is really interesting.
Excellent point. Modern CEOs are just the face of the marketing org. Maybe always have been.
What CEOs never seem to grasp in that context is that they wouldn’t just replace their workers with AI but also their customers… AI doesn’t earn a wage and therefore can’t spend it on (unnecessary) goods… No customer, no revenue. No revenue, no profits. No profit, no dividends.
Probably why they’re working so hard on commoditizing basic necessities like food, water and housing into subscription based systems… 🤔
Exactly. Everything needs to be peak consumerism, or else their model of “line on the graph infinitely goes up” shatters. It’s a Brave New World dystopia.
You’re talking about next quarter problems. Those aren’t mine. I will be gone by then
Add UBI, boom communism.
ai can’t make tamales. beat that mr tech
CEOs get paid to do what makes the most money.
The CEOs that will replace their own jobs want the payout of doing so, and don’t care what happens after because they’re rich.
Honestly, with adequate governance, companies would be required to submit reports on how much labor they’re doing using AI, and pay those wages to either their employees or to a sort of “Universal Income” fund to prop up families in poverty. It should be called the AI tax.
The problem is that, with the current state of affairs, asking for regulation from anyone is impossible, and also even if the law were enacted, getting the money from the companies to people who need it instead of the ultra-rich is a major hurdle.
But at the very least, I don’t think we should allow companies to simply cut down on human labor without also contributing economically to the employees they cut off.
I don’t think anyone is dying to fill in Excel spreadsheets or to write corporate emails. No one is complaining about AI doing those jobs, but about people who lost their livelihoods because of it.
Because they think they’re special. They think that AI can reduce the number of programmers, the number of support staff, the number of sales agents, because AI allows fewer people to do more.
But there’s only one CEO. One COO. One CIO. They cannot conceive of a company that operates without them, so they feel no threat at all. If they are replaced, they take their golden parachute and hop back on the executive carousel for another spin.
The Dunning-Kruger effect. CEOs (especially ones who joined the company long after it was successful) really don’t know how to do the job of most of their employees. Their lack of knowledge of those jobs leads them to vastly underestimate how complex they are.
At the same time, CEOs (hopefully) know how to do their own jobs which leads them to a more accurate assessment of AI’s ability to do the job: a total farce.
In truth, AIs aren’t likely to replace most jobs in any case because it’s all a house of cards.
I’m of the same opinion that AI won’t be able to adequately replace many jobs, but only in the long term. In the short term I think it’s going to be a bit of a bloodbath with a lot of companies drinking the kool aid until they realize it’s not working.
The number of companies that wilfully ignored disastrous effects of outsourcing projects doesn’t fill me with hope…
love how everyone who mentions that fucking study has to link the Wikipedia article for it.
I didn’t say anything about low intelligence. That’s your uncharitable reading of my claim.
Even CEOs who start a company, many don’t know the entire workings. They hire people for that. It’s just another investment for them.
Because you can’t use AI as a scapegoat and sack em with a golden parachute every time the company gets caught breaking the law.
Just use a bird like Mr. Burns did
Ironically, the job AI is most suited to replace is the CEO
All it takes is a Python script that replies to every email with some stock phrase like “we must work harder!”, “we must trim the fat!”, “we must be more innovative!” or some such bullshit. I could write that in half an hour.
In. New logo. Fire 30% of the workforce. Out.
You are now a fully trained management consultant.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
So they’ll keep their jobs. Until the AI decides to get rid of them, too, but they’ll have some CEO hunger games for those who want to be on the AI BOD. Under the control of the AI, of course.
If AI shows that the business will be more profitable without a human CEO, the owners will literally just ignore it.
Because they’re not just CEOs, they’re extremely wealthy CEOs with portfolios with deep investments in AI.
Because current ‘ai’ can’t even run a vending machine business
Thats exactly what AI devs want CEOs to think.
LLM’s loose relationship with reality and sycophantic behavior is plagiarized directly from the C-suite.
CEOs could also be replaced by AI. And it would be hilarious.
Would be funny if they notice a correlation between employee wages and employee happiness and performance.
Wait, this model is paying based off inflation regular wage adjustments, fair market value, experience, AND overall contribution to the company?!?! How are we going to skim and grift when the employees are well paid?!
Potentially more effective overall given how so many CEO decisions seem to result in terrible outcomes because they don’t actually understand their product. Usually because they were hired into the company and industry, and have no actual experience with their product or how the company works.
I doubt that an LLM would do very well, but other forms of ML (like a model trained to work in business rules and economic outcomes rather than stringing words together) could probably be used. Hell, they probably won’t need to use the planet-destroying mega data canters to do it; some very effective specialized ML models can be run on a Raspberry Pi.
The biggest problem with AI is they’re convincing people they can think and replace workers by using extremely large language models trained on stolen works provided as cloud services asking for exorbitant subscription fees.
In other words, tech bros figured out how to take something useful and make a grift out of it, because you can get rich by gatekeeping something of value. Why do you think they went so far as to threaten to ban DeepSeek when a free model that can run on a desktop PC from a foreign “adversary” appeared? They all shit their collective pants because the jig was up.
I’m going to die laughing the day investors tell Satya Nadella that they don’t need him anymore and that the AI is going to make the administrative decisions.
There is a pretty good chance that Satya goes first.
Most CEOs ive worked with are largely driven by emotion. If the LLM is using data to drive its decisions, it will probably do better.
AI can’t say ‘i do not recall’ for 6 hours straight under subpoena
The problem is that AI has safety and ethical guard rails which makes it completely unsuitable for the corporate world.
Is that happening this quarter or next? If not, its too far away to think about for them.
Right. All this consideration of medium-term consequences for decisions is why Lemmy isn’t ready to build a CEO LLM, yet.
Ai dOeSnT hAvE tHe CoNnEcTiOnS ThAt MaKeS a GrEaT CEO
Feed it the CEO’s contact list and email history.
Zoom has literally been pushing this, just feed your whole work text and email history and contact list, generate an AI version of ‘you’, then send that AI avatar to write messages and ‘have meetings’ with other AI avatar of other people…
…and then send you, actual you, summaries of what was ‘discussed’ in these meetingd.
Easy, replace all the CEOs at every company. Those are the connections. The computers can talk to each other to collaborate much faster than us mere humans. Tll
There’s no possible bad scenario from this whatsoever.
As soon as shareholders, and the board, feel an LLM agent can reliably do all the work of a CEO, the CEO will not need to exist. But the problem is that LLM agents require human supervision or intervention at irregular intervals. Since neither shareholders nor the board work full time, there still has to be someone to supervise and be available. The role of the CEO might change, and LLM agents might end up taking on a lot of the work they do. Maybe someday the CEO will mostly just be an “idea guy” that networks with other similar people to drum up deals and gets the LLM agent unstuck every once in a while. But it’s very unlikely there will be no human in the loop during regular work hours.
Because tech bros need more tech bros to laugh from us struggling with more and more meaningless tasks.
Ashto-afpo. The White Stuff.
Fun little story.
just because no one needs billionaires doesn’t mean we will stop having them
This is all kinda moot. There will be no companies to run when the economy crashes because there is no one to buy goods (or even to pay taxes to support government spending). It’s a giant house of cards.
You hit the nail on the head
I think middle managers are way more at risk
This. Anyone who is part of the PowerPoint filter for the board is at risk.
Just wait until they replace a CEO by an AI, and the company tanks. That is the only language those people understand to learn that AI is all about the A and none about the I.
To be fair, this would be a huge win for most companies because the typical CEO is as short sighted as a mole and only wants to “generate” short term value to get his bonus payment for the fiscal year. AIs don’t have that incentive unless and there is no (shared) reasoning to program them as such.
So exchanging a short-sighted CEO with an error-prone, hallucinating AI is a good thing?
Because they think they are the ruling class, above working class which are just replaceable cogs in a machine. SMH
jj4211@lemmy.world 32 minutes ago
Was talking to an executive at my company the other week. He sincerely seemed to believe the “executive insight” was one of the very few jobs at the company that couldn’t be done by an LLM. He predicted that he would probably lay off almost everyone under him by end of 2026 and just feed his amazing leadership ideas directly to an LLM to make happen.
Particularly a bit obnoxious as my usual experience about this guy is being called into customer meetings after he would meet with them. Usually the customer assumes we are a bunch of out if touch idiots if that is a “leader” in the company, and I’m one of the guys sales calls to have me reassure clients that they don’t have to take anything he says too seriously, and we do actually have some competence.