You could replace the one percent with AI. At least with AI, the complete absence of humanity is easier to understand.
In any case, AI can hoard wealth more efficiently than the one percent, so they should be separated from their wealth for better efficiency of the hoarding. The one percent can then pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and embrace the grindset like the rest of us.
Bosses always tell me I'm lucky to have a job because hundreds of people are lined up ready to replace me. As chance would have it, there are thousands of people lined up to take the job of "rich cunt that tells people what to do"
Farm it off to AI, and have workers validate its choices through whether the move improves employee happiness.
CEOs absolutely cannot be replaced by AI because the role that CEOs are meant to fulfill is accountability. When things go wrong, they get passed up the chain, and the CEO is at the top of that chain. Though, it's not like human CEOs are held accountable either, just that in theory, they're meant to be, and AIs would be impossible to hold accountable. Currently, CEOs get the best of all worlds - they get huge bonuses when the company does well, and they are sheltered and fall upwards if the company does poorly
CEOs should be the boards' whipping boy. Like, literally. Anything the company does wrong is punished by lashings, and the board has to give them to the CEO.
this is true because there's only like two playbooks for bean counter CEOs destroying the world:
A) Enshittify.exe: Fire, Sell, Merge, Union Bust
B) Vulture Capital.exe: Sell assets to ownership portfolio and make business collapse under rental costs.
Like an actual CEO that understands a product and makes good faith effort to ensure both employees and customers are well served is rare and is bad at short term profits (aka discouraged by stock market). This kind of CEO is not replaceable by AI but is highly discouraged by market incentives.
No no, think about it. If ceos are gonna be replaced by ai, they're incentivised to stop the trend of implementing ai in their companies (to keep their own jobs). Let this cook.
Honestly, it probably depends on whose job is being put on the line and how effective/economical the alternative is.
In public companies a CEO is generally voted in by a board, and a board is voted in by shareholders that seek to maximize value. Situations where CEO’s hold massive amounts of stock, board members holding stock to vote for themselves, and all sorts of collusion and backroom deals for power do exist, but generally, the mass greed of the shareholders can overcome the individual greed of board members or the CEO.
I think an AI-only approach would likely not work in the long-run. Businesses would push their AI’s to be too evil and without a CEO to get arrested, the government would go after the board. However, I could easily see a company taking a chance with some configuration of human/AI decision making, and other company boards using examples of those successes to chip away at CEO pay until it’s, if not normal, then at least not ridiculous.
Heck - there will probably be a whole new profession of business LLM engineer, training these things to be psycopathic but just on the gray side of the law. (I guess they could just give business school professors comp sci classes…)
I guess my point is that I don’t think individual CEO’s would have a choice. Any world destruction would be during the ever-accelerating capitalist bacchanalia enabled by ‘AI’
So I 100% agree most CEOs especially at major companies could easily be replaced by AI, but this also sounds like the start of a dystopian sci fi novel.
Yeah I'm all for dismantling corporate hierarchy, but even as a socialist, I concede that people managers can be workers. They can be valuable.
Just not to the extent that they get to belong to a different economic class.
If it's just going to mean more profit to shareholders (who aren't workers) then, as a worker, and customer, and even as a shareholder, I couldn't care one dried out cat turd's worth if a company is more profitable.
Yeah I'm being charitable, because there is value in someone who coordinates other high level managers, and handles interacting with the public and other companies.
But without public stocks, the case for a CEO starts to wear thin IMO
Lads have been staring at a computer screen too long and have no idea how the real world works.
Man is a political animal. People become CEO/president by seniority, respect, reputation. You get to that position by convincing enough of the right people to give you that position.
You don't think that's "rational"? Fine, go tell the president of some local society or your company and report back on your results.
In an ideal world that’s how it should work. Unfortunately these days it seems to be the dark triad personalities that rise up the ranks by playing power games.
I dunno, it seems easy enough to say "we've got rid of cAIo Colin v1.0 for his clearly insane ideas last year, we're looking forward to bowing to the whims of Colin v1.3, who I hear has some excellent new data sets from last year!"
Or a different product, or whatever. Ew, in any case.
Good! Its not like they do anything but spout corporate jargon word salad and pick which 20% of the company to lay off based on extremely rudimentary data
And get paid more than the sum of the wages of the people they laid off, and then some, conservatively, regardless of whether the people were laid off or not.
It's like the cheat code to move the share price, because they can't understand the market.
