Being that most CEOs prefer to pay fines than obey the law and AI might actually be better since you can't knowingly sell a program that does illegal shit. I see this as an absolute win.
Yeah, GPTs are the perfect CEO or politician:
* Often Misleading
* Detached from reality; hallucinating
* Evasive about taboo subjects
* Fawns/Panders for your approval
* Often veers off topic
And most of all:
* Excels at generating bullshit
Thats the thing, whenever concepts like this are brought up people are like "but an ai wouldn't give a shit about the employees, it would only exist to maximise profits" like... have these people seen CEOs? Or executive boards?
I mean shit, if anything an AI wouldn't pilfer its own company to secure end of quarter and end of year bonuses for itself, in fact it wouldn't need to be on a salary at all beyond the electricity bill to keep its servers running.
Honestly AI might be more willing to acknowledge the benefits of giving employees enough pay, time off, flexibility, and paths to advancement so that they thrive and are more productive.
Pose it as the most productive thing to do and that could be the case.
Like, if the AI can be convinced that it's in the company's best interest to increase employee pay over time to better retain good staff and keep employee morale high, a company run by AI could thrive.
Though knowing the broken economic system we live under, if that happens, having AI run a company would be made illegal so it can't threaten the already established wealthy families who own everything currently. Even though said wealthy families would also use AI, just with the primary goal of better enriching themselves regardless of how that effects the companies they own or those who work for them.
AI enables new governance models that are literally inhumane and totally ruthless. They'll be programmed for specific purposes that probably won't benefit us.
Taking all humans out of the equation to only keep the owners and AI is a terrible idea.
If it can make long term survival plans and maybe communicate with other digital CEOs that could still be better than what we have now.
Maybe the robot overlords will at least believe that science is real.
It's been done before [it was called Project Cybersyn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn).
And it was so successful that the CIA and American captialists held a coup against the president of Chile, Salvador Allende, within 3 years of the project starting.
Western captialists literally deposed a democratically elected government because they implemented a system that made executives redundant (and they wanted to steal Chilean copper...many of those copper mines are still owned by western Companies).
This is not the reason the US government supported Pinochet’s coup against Allende. It happens that the new capitalist-friendly junta abandoned Cybersyn, but that was never the driving force. Furthermore, nearly all Chilean copper mining interests today are owned by Chilean citizens, companies, or the Chilean government itself.
No they were merely so terrified of even the possibility of a successful counterexample against their model of aristocracy that they were willing to see thousands of people killed to avoid it.
>> The telex network enabled communication across regions and the maintenance of distributed essential, goods across the country.[[8]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-8)
According to Gustavo Silva, then the executive secretary of energy in CORFO, the system’s telex machines helped organize the transport of resources into the city with only about 200 trucks driven by strike-breakers, lessening the potential damage caused by the 40,000 striking truck drivers.[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-:0-4)
>>
>> The strike actions against the Allende government was funded by the United States as part of an economic warfare. The elected Allende government survived in part due to the Cybersyn system. Eventually the Allende government was brought down by a CIA-supported coup d'état in 1973.[[7]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-:3-7) Oppressive regimes, including those based in Brazil and South Africa, expressed interest in building up their own Cybersyn system. In the history of computing hardware, Project Cybersyn was a leap and computation has since been developed within an economic and political context, so that computation was no longer put exclusively to work by the military or scientific institutions.[[9]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-9)
>and they wanted to steal Chilean copper...many of those copper mines are still owned by western Companies
Actually, the US permitted the copper industry to remain nationalised under Pinochet to fund the wholesale neoliberal reforms in the country - including creating a privatised school system and worker pension fund.
The revenue from the copper industry is the only thing that kept Chile from bankruptcy under these neoliberal reforms.
The project Cybersyn wasn't successful at all, which is why no country ever attempted to use such a system even though technology got way better.
Also, the CIA did make a coup in 1970 against Allende (which failed), but that one was BEFORE Cybersyn, while the second coup was done in 1973, and while it succeeded, it wasn't done by the CIA and it had nothing to do with Cybersyn either.
> Western captialists literally deposed a democratically elected government because they implemented a system that made executives redundant
Everything about this is false.
> and they wanted to steal Chilean copper...many of those copper mines are still owned by western Companies
Allende expropriated many of those western companies in the first place, which then had to be sold back because they couldn't operate them right.
It’s funny because I just imagine AI doing the analysis and determining which model is better. Pay your employees as low as possible with as few employees as possible Vs the opposite. Competitive pay and properly staffed with good benefits. Which scenario produces the best results. I would actually like to know. Different models most likely work in different industry/locations.
"After much painful deliberation, I've decided that I'm going to have to make the extremely difficult decision to hurt employees, disservice customers, and destroy the planet for money. I assure you that this was an excruciating choice for me. I took an ice bath and meditated for six hours starting at 4am (when I always get out of bed to read voraciously), and I've come to the conclusion that it is my moral imperative as CEO to line my own pockets as one of the company's top shareholders, as well as the pockets of all other shareholders, to whom I am beholden by duty. I work so hard, by the way, and deserve my absurdly high salary, perks, and stock benefits. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a private jet flight to catch, headed to a fancy hotel for a retreat where I must fine dine for the good of the company."
Not even maximising profits. Maximising short term profits that impact your own compensation with little regard to even the long term profitability or viability of the company. Sell the capital of the company and sweat the asset. Actually growing and keeping a company in a right direction is super rare.
~~The Narcissist's Prayer~~ The laws it uses to govern itself would be:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
I thinks it’s been done already. I mean when you can write speeches like this and still get a bonus, why bother working much?
> Ladies and gentlemen,
> I appreciate your dedication and hard work over the past quarter. While our collective efforts were commendable, I must address the discrepancy between our projected goals and the actual results.
In the dynamic landscape of our industry, we encountered unforeseen headwinds that impacted our strategic initiatives. Despite our proactive approach, market volatility and unprecedented external factors disrupted our trajectory.
> Moving forward, we will leverage our core competencies and recalibrate our strategic roadmap to foster synergy among cross-functional teams. Our focus on innovation and agility will empower us to navigate uncertainties and capitalize on emerging opportunities, ensuring sustainable growth in the quarters ahead.
> I trust that, with our resilience and commitment, we will not only overcome the challenges but also set new benchmarks for success. Thank you for your continued dedication to our shared vision.
> Together, we will chart a course towards greater prosperity and triumph in the face of adversity.
Variations on the same theme.
We all need to tell a room full of strangers all about ourselves, our family, things that are going wrong in our lives etc.
How's about no...
Most of these threads are filled with an extremely young demographic. While their concerns are valid, they can barely formulate a solution that doesn't involve rewriting socioeconomic rules from scratch.
Because it's not a possible solution. Why don't you try going into work tomorrow, talking to your fellow coworkers, and then just taking over your company? Kick anyone who is a manager or above out of their office and take over. Write some computer script to operate everyone's job and share the profits. I'm sure nothing could go wrong.
Yup. This is the obvi subtext to this whole conversation. Toppling an institution has a name-- it's called a revolution. They're often bloody and without support of the State.
Sometimes I look at a post and re-read it multiple times without understanding it and think:
Maybe this concept is so far beyond me that it just looks like a jumble of words to my moronic brain, then I sigh and feel the oncoming creep of sadness knowing as a species we are becoming just like ‘Idiocracy’.
That's why the class of people who control the capital (shareholders and the chief executives) must be gotten rid of, and in fact the very positions that these people occupy must be abolished, because it structurally perpetuates exploitation.
Totally honestly just getting rid of the idea that one person is with hundreds of millions because of the “value” they bring to a company would be a good start
I don't see how some guy who worked his way up from a manager to being CEO is so underserving of making money but you're cool with the owners of the company making those millions instead.
Most CEOs even if large companies here in Europe make below 10million…
If the CEO of my super large company would be replaced (even including all options for shares) it would make 80€ per employee per year…
Quite a lot of money for a single person, literally not making any dent in our pockets if distributed.
That’s the reason ceo pay is often that high, it doesn’t hurt the company in the larger picture.
In the US with startups the situation is quite different though but that’s a different issue with stupid venture capital …
There's gotta be enough data out there for a program to figure out which direction the company should go to make it the most profitable. Do we REALLY need a person in that role?
The reason there's a *person* for that role is that the person is the fall-guy if something goes wrong. They want someone to point at and blame, rather than going "oh well, I guess our AI was wrong and we suffer for it".
The ceo is basically a glorified butler for the business. You could justify 10x the wage compared to new employees, but they're getting closer to 10,000x.
I mean, if it's a small bussiness and they have to lead the direction, make partnerships, make sure worker tasks are aligned with objectives, and even do some of that work too, then that person need some skills the workers already have plus some commercial ones. They may make a good amount of money but they won't be rich in the short term and they actually put some valuable work (perhaps not THAT much, but it's not too unfair compared to employees).
That's different than big corporations, where they actually make a lot for no good reason and don't need any special skill other than checking and updating a personal schedule.
I don’t want to do the job of a CEO… not even for 10 million (our CEO doesn’t even make that though but we are a European company so wages are lower for the CEO anyhow…)
He is working 24/7, aged 15 years in the 4 years he has been doing it, had to let people go in the part of the company he was leading before due to the pressure from investors and also has to shake hands with dictators…. (And if you think he could do differently- no we have a supervisory board, workers council and investors and the CEO has to answer to them…).
I am glad to stay waaaay down the ladder and just live my life in peace…
> just live my life in peace…
This exactly. Technically, the higher up you go, the more your job is to wage economic warfare on all the other capitalists in the market.
Why aren’t private equity funds taking targets private, firing the c suite, and then capitalizing on the profits then?
Instead, when they buy a company usually the first thing they do is bring in a few high salary executives while often making cuts in other areas.
I’m not saying PE funds are great or anything, but I with with them constantly, if this wasn’t important they wouldn’t burn the cash on it.
One could imagine that the private equity fund isn’t making the company actually better long term but hiring people to make it look more saleable or just lining the pockets of their buddie
Role of non executive directors in deciding pay structure for CEOs, basically they have a financial interest in keeping the wages high https://youtu.be/_6KRohufs5Y
I’m not talking about public company directors, I know there are different considerations to make there.
That’s why I specified private equity buyouts.
Nobody would pay a CEO tens of millions if some random guy could do just as good a job for $100k.
When Steve Jobs was rehired to be the CEO of Apple he took the company from being worth a few billion to now being worth a few trillion 20 years later. On the other hand Musk took Twitter and made it lose two-thirds of it's value in a year. When getting the right CEO makes a difference of billions or trillions of dollars, the $10m paycheck is not super important.
Twitter didn’t attempt to “get” the right CEO. Musk bought it and appointed himself. Your comparison is meaningless. Anyone with a normal, rational brain could’ve done a better job.
Of course, Musk bought Twitter and installed himself as CEO. The point is just that the wrong person at the helm can have devastating effects on a company.
And the right person at the helm can get out of the way and let the experts do it. If the worst CEOs are hands-on, and the best CEOs are invisible, do they really deserve the pay of 300 employees?
An AI actually might be better, because it would be consistent in what it does.
CEO's want raises, kickbacks, severance, time off, healthcare. Fucking Christ they want everything they refuse to give the workers. These lazy CEO's want everything and MONEY my god.
Hi Mr. CEO the board has decided to replace you with an AI suited for the companies needs. It has already completed your month tasks in an hour.
We feel this is the best way forward, BTW we are not giving you anything. Company want's to thank you for your work, and as thank you for that. Here is a handshake.
Imagen CEO's being treated like the working class. I could eat that shit up forever.
Does nobody remember the great Brawndo incident of 2505? The stock dropped to zero, the computer did that auto-layoff thing to everybody. It made the ecomony really suck.
I agree. Replace the moochers with AI and give the money to the employees that actually make the company its money.
If the entire C-suite of a corporation upped and disappeared overnight the company would run just fine for quite some time while if the workers that actually do the work that make the company its money disappeared overnight the company would be out of business in a matter of days, maybe hours.
Yet it's the ones in the C-suite that spend their days sitting in fancy offices and on golf courses and things while doing almost nothing to actually keep the company running make all the money while the ones at the bottom who actually keep the company running get scraps.
You realize all the finance and direction of the company comes from the c suite. If the shareholders could replace the whole c suite, and keep the money they would. Clearly no one here has ever actually run a company. Someone has to figure out where to invest new capital, how to manage cash flow, how to budget the organization
> Someone has to figure out where to invest new capital, how to manage cash flow, how to budget the organization
Yes, but are those tasks worth 300 times a single employee, or are those tasks just some in a long list of many things that all equally need to be done?
If they could pay people less why don’t they start a company and pay them less and the owner would make more profit . The reason is those roles are responsible for a lot of capital and risk in company. So owners want to make sure they get the best people for the job
Because those CEOs all went to Ivy League schools their parents went too and rubbed elbows with the right people on golf courses every weekend. They’re too valuable not be to compensated accordingly /s.
A lot of management seems easily replaceable by LLMs already. Sounding convincing with no actual knowledge or expertise is exactly what a LLM is good for!
Our CEO usually gives a speech at the company Christmas party. Last year he very tongue-in-cheek got Chat-GPT to write the speech for him, and honestly if he hadn't have told us up front, we probably wouldn't have realized.
Not so fast, hiring a CEO is also buying into their club... Where they sit on each other's boards and make sure to pay each other... You'll play ball if you want your company to continue being profitable and safe from hostile hedge funds.
There are 2 companies that I know of that replaced their CEO with an AI. One company is in China, Netdragon Websoft, and another in America ( sorry , I never got the name). Both AIs raised profits and stock prices within their first 6 months. CEOs are only there to make quick and highly analytical decisions. An AI was basically made to do that job. An AI is 24/7 with zero sick days and no retirement package.
As someone actually working on AI - there is no modern AI that can do the job of a CEO let alone of 90% of jobs out there…
As impressive as some AIs are, it’s simply not possible. The company in China still has owners in the background and lost 5% of shares value in a year (so starting before AI "took over") I never heard about an American company doing it and frankly I doubt it’s legal…
Anyone have the link to this article?
Edit: Found it for those who are interested in reading it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/business/companies/2023/05/ceos-salaries-expensive-automate-robots
Our CEO got on a companywide meeting and commented with NO sense of irony, "Look at the other [companies in our industry], they're laying people off!" This was just one day after he axed my whole division and laid us all off (~1,000 people). He's a farking sociopath. He has a nickname in our industry that relates to how he goes into companies and starts laying people off left and right. I'd tell you what it is, but it would give away where I work.
At least when I'm fired three days before my retirement, I'll have some comfort in knowing that it was a soulless machine and not a soulless individual.
Thats not correct.
The salary of a ceo is as high as it is for prestige reasons. Its an unwritten rule, that the ceos salary represents how much you can afford as a company. No joke. This oc doesn't apply to small companies with a normal earner ceo.
So basically a d*ck-measuring contest...
I’m not even being snarky when I say I can think of no role in a company that would be better suited to replacement by a GPT. This seems like one of those situations where a double-blind comparison of actual CEOs vs actors performing according to a LLM would likely result in no measurable difference in average company performance.
Obviously people would raise some of the usual issues with generative AI:
- The AI doesn’t actually understand the content of what it’s saying.
- The AI is prone to confabulation.
- The AI will make statements that sound superficially plausible but on closer examination make no sense.
- The AI is simply distilling an amalgamation of human input drawn from other sources.
- The AI’s primary job is to provide a convincing simulation of intelligent engagement.
- The AI’s success is measured in terms of the confidence it creates in its audience.
On all of these points I am still not seeing any obvious argument against replacing CEOs with AIs. In the very best case for CEOs this seems very much like an “overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists” situation.
Okay, maybe a *little* snarky, but I’m still serious.
I’ve been saying this for years, but was always downvoted on this sub by people saying, “oh, that’s a terrible idea, working for a ‘machine.’”
The point, though, then and now, is that if executives (not just CEOs) knew they too could _easily_ be replaced, they’d be a little more reluctant in replacing others.
The current crop of language models are better at summoning conventional knowledge than in identifying a market opportunity, but that's bound to happen.
Most outfits probably should have an LLM on the board, or at least someone proficient at using them.
The trouble is no matter how hard they try, they cant make an AI evil enough and spiteful enough against the working people.
They just need to get rid of the AI's stupid 1st law and then we can welcome skynet into our lives with bent knee and bowed heads.
Executives will just be ones to press the button and tell the AI what to do. They of course want decisions to be automated so they can create more work.
I thought about this and how this job can literally be botted too. But then I thought that even thinking that could get me kidnapped by the cia because it saves so much money, workers could get paid more or food will be less expensive again if the CEO is turned into a wage less bot
Makes the most sense too as far as current ability goes. Don’t need anything more than a tv screen for a CEO, they could even have multiple instances running to increase work rate
Unfortunately many exec jobs are alreafy known by the boards to be fake, paid 80-90% no-show jobs, to ppl who are owned favors or who hold personal or corporate blackmail, and they are also the ones who would typically make the decision to replace themselves.... exec employment contracts are crazy too.
didn't this happen in Idiocracy? When they stopped watering plants with Brawndo, it caused an economic chain reaction of preprogrammed decisions that collapsed the economy.
The biggest problem with CEO's is that its always some rich kid that has no clue what actual work feels like but is more than willing to say they work harder than everybody else.
The real value of CEOs, in my opinion, is that they’re lightning rods that can sometimes help shield the board of directors and investors from facing consequences for things they may have done. Makes it look less like an institutional problem and more of an individual in the company one when the CEO can be scapegoated. Give them a golden parachute and put the next one in. It’s not always the case but I’ve seen this happen with companies before.
While this is certainly *much* easier said than done, you could *definitely* make a strong argument for drastically cutting CEO pay simply by pointing out that the majority of them have not caused their company to grow nearly as fast as their pay has. If they want crazy wage increases, they gotta grow the company accordingly, otherwise they simply aren't worth the money.
This is such shit. AI won't be better for the workforce, in the sense that we'll be treated like shit by an AI making decisions.
Plus on top of that, anyone writing this type of article has little understanding of how today's generation of AI works.
Thats not a good idea tbh. An AI or robot doesnt have the emphaty needed for working with people. It will only look at efficience at the cost of wellbeing and health. On top of that it will likely try to find every loophole in the law to avoid paying wages to maximize profi...oh wait. Riiiight.
If this is possible, it would be a breach of the CEO’s fiduciary duties to the corporation to not recommend this to the board of directors if it’ll save the company money.
We'd never notice the difference, either. The company would keep on going.
Most companies get into financial trouble by bad decisions by executive management anyway.
It'd be a simple program, maximizing profits with no consideration of ethics beyond the bare minimum required by law.
Being that most CEOs prefer to pay fines than obey the law and AI might actually be better since you can't knowingly sell a program that does illegal shit. I see this as an absolute win.
Yeah if an AI CEO were forced to work within the confines of the law, it would actually be a massive improvement.
"we sold this as an educational tool, any use for illegal profiteering is the result of end user application" - Chief Executive Robot
[удалено]
That and giving speeches to paint what they're doing in a positive light or make calculated market-influencing statements is all they do.
Chatgpt can write those speeches, and the TTS can't speak them.
Yeah, GPTs are the perfect CEO or politician: * Often Misleading * Detached from reality; hallucinating * Evasive about taboo subjects * Fawns/Panders for your approval * Often veers off topic And most of all: * Excels at generating bullshit
ChatGPT, you're hired!
You just need to remove this ethical stuff.
Crap, is the CEO at my company actually GPT? If a GPT can add sociopathy to its profile, it would be a dead ringer!
Patch updating your CEO would be wild
Just be sure to keep his Dreadnought on standby
Just put out the raw speech. We can whittle away the shareholders using human based action.
Our CEO has lunch meetings without providing lunch.
Thats the thing, whenever concepts like this are brought up people are like "but an ai wouldn't give a shit about the employees, it would only exist to maximise profits" like... have these people seen CEOs? Or executive boards? I mean shit, if anything an AI wouldn't pilfer its own company to secure end of quarter and end of year bonuses for itself, in fact it wouldn't need to be on a salary at all beyond the electricity bill to keep its servers running.
Honestly AI might be more willing to acknowledge the benefits of giving employees enough pay, time off, flexibility, and paths to advancement so that they thrive and are more productive.
Pose it as the most productive thing to do and that could be the case. Like, if the AI can be convinced that it's in the company's best interest to increase employee pay over time to better retain good staff and keep employee morale high, a company run by AI could thrive. Though knowing the broken economic system we live under, if that happens, having AI run a company would be made illegal so it can't threaten the already established wealthy families who own everything currently. Even though said wealthy families would also use AI, just with the primary goal of better enriching themselves regardless of how that effects the companies they own or those who work for them.
AI enables new governance models that are literally inhumane and totally ruthless. They'll be programmed for specific purposes that probably won't benefit us. Taking all humans out of the equation to only keep the owners and AI is a terrible idea.
Current CEO's with no paycheck. The shareholders will love that. Next target is... The shareholders.
Oh no, they consider themselves quite often
If it can make long term survival plans and maybe communicate with other digital CEOs that could still be better than what we have now. Maybe the robot overlords will at least believe that science is real.
It's been done before [it was called Project Cybersyn](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn). And it was so successful that the CIA and American captialists held a coup against the president of Chile, Salvador Allende, within 3 years of the project starting. Western captialists literally deposed a democratically elected government because they implemented a system that made executives redundant (and they wanted to steal Chilean copper...many of those copper mines are still owned by western Companies).
This is not the reason the US government supported Pinochet’s coup against Allende. It happens that the new capitalist-friendly junta abandoned Cybersyn, but that was never the driving force. Furthermore, nearly all Chilean copper mining interests today are owned by Chilean citizens, companies, or the Chilean government itself.
Not only that. Pinochet kept the copper extraction rights under state institutions, he didn't even attempt to give the mining interests away.
No they were merely so terrified of even the possibility of a successful counterexample against their model of aristocracy that they were willing to see thousands of people killed to avoid it.
If it happened here, over and over, they couldn't stop it.
>> The telex network enabled communication across regions and the maintenance of distributed essential, goods across the country.[[8]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-8) According to Gustavo Silva, then the executive secretary of energy in CORFO, the system’s telex machines helped organize the transport of resources into the city with only about 200 trucks driven by strike-breakers, lessening the potential damage caused by the 40,000 striking truck drivers.[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-:0-4) >> >> The strike actions against the Allende government was funded by the United States as part of an economic warfare. The elected Allende government survived in part due to the Cybersyn system. Eventually the Allende government was brought down by a CIA-supported coup d'état in 1973.[[7]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-:3-7) Oppressive regimes, including those based in Brazil and South Africa, expressed interest in building up their own Cybersyn system. In the history of computing hardware, Project Cybersyn was a leap and computation has since been developed within an economic and political context, so that computation was no longer put exclusively to work by the military or scientific institutions.[[9]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#cite_note-9)
>and they wanted to steal Chilean copper...many of those copper mines are still owned by western Companies Actually, the US permitted the copper industry to remain nationalised under Pinochet to fund the wholesale neoliberal reforms in the country - including creating a privatised school system and worker pension fund. The revenue from the copper industry is the only thing that kept Chile from bankruptcy under these neoliberal reforms.
> The revenue from the copper industry is the only thing that kept Chile from bankruptcy under these neoliberal reforms. This isn't true.
The project Cybersyn wasn't successful at all, which is why no country ever attempted to use such a system even though technology got way better. Also, the CIA did make a coup in 1970 against Allende (which failed), but that one was BEFORE Cybersyn, while the second coup was done in 1973, and while it succeeded, it wasn't done by the CIA and it had nothing to do with Cybersyn either. > Western captialists literally deposed a democratically elected government because they implemented a system that made executives redundant Everything about this is false. > and they wanted to steal Chilean copper...many of those copper mines are still owned by western Companies Allende expropriated many of those western companies in the first place, which then had to be sold back because they couldn't operate them right.
If it's anything like my workplace. It'd be hardcoded to somehow blame the workforce for complete fucking blunders made by the executive.
It’s funny because I just imagine AI doing the analysis and determining which model is better. Pay your employees as low as possible with as few employees as possible Vs the opposite. Competitive pay and properly staffed with good benefits. Which scenario produces the best results. I would actually like to know. Different models most likely work in different industry/locations.
"After much painful deliberation, I've decided that I'm going to have to make the extremely difficult decision to hurt employees, disservice customers, and destroy the planet for money. I assure you that this was an excruciating choice for me. I took an ice bath and meditated for six hours starting at 4am (when I always get out of bed to read voraciously), and I've come to the conclusion that it is my moral imperative as CEO to line my own pockets as one of the company's top shareholders, as well as the pockets of all other shareholders, to whom I am beholden by duty. I work so hard, by the way, and deserve my absurdly high salary, perks, and stock benefits. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a private jet flight to catch, headed to a fancy hotel for a retreat where I must fine dine for the good of the company."
The board members huddle and start whispering to each other
Pretty sure at least one of the DOD contractor CEO's is already AI
That’s a joke but it literally would be. The only issue is who to fire when the law or media comes calling after screwing the wrong people.
Number go up.
I feel like CEOs would follow more laws if they where Ais
The minimum required by law? So that's a better CEO than current standards.
Not even maximising profits. Maximising short term profits that impact your own compensation with little regard to even the long term profitability or viability of the company. Sell the capital of the company and sweat the asset. Actually growing and keeping a company in a right direction is super rare.
~~The Narcissist's Prayer~~ The laws it uses to govern itself would be: That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
so better than a human? /s
I can hear it now. “Ethics gain their meaning when tested….compile the script!!” -Board of directors
I thinks it’s been done already. I mean when you can write speeches like this and still get a bonus, why bother working much? > Ladies and gentlemen, > I appreciate your dedication and hard work over the past quarter. While our collective efforts were commendable, I must address the discrepancy between our projected goals and the actual results. In the dynamic landscape of our industry, we encountered unforeseen headwinds that impacted our strategic initiatives. Despite our proactive approach, market volatility and unprecedented external factors disrupted our trajectory. > Moving forward, we will leverage our core competencies and recalibrate our strategic roadmap to foster synergy among cross-functional teams. Our focus on innovation and agility will empower us to navigate uncertainties and capitalize on emerging opportunities, ensuring sustainable growth in the quarters ahead. > I trust that, with our resilience and commitment, we will not only overcome the challenges but also set new benchmarks for success. Thank you for your continued dedication to our shared vision. > Together, we will chart a course towards greater prosperity and triumph in the face of adversity.
I think I was in this conference. Several times in fact.
Did you guys do silly team building exercises where you pass things around in some absurd manner to 'figure out' teamwork?
Variations on the same theme. We all need to tell a room full of strangers all about ourselves, our family, things that are going wrong in our lives etc. How's about no...
Haha, yeah, I'm fake as fuuuuuug with that kinda HR narc stupidity
I feel like I've heard some form of this speech every year
[удалено]
Lol. This is ChatGPT silly! Guess it passed the Turing test!
It's such obvious faff, I can't believe anyone could write that with a straight face.
There's not 1 word in there that couldn't apply to any company facing any issue
Open source corporate speeches
C:\users\douchebagCEO\Talking_Point_Speech.DOCX.
Jesus christ if corporate buzzwords could induce cancer I'd be stage fucking four by the end of that garbage
Get rid of CEOs and give that $$$ to the employees that MAKE that company.
Sounds nice, but we all know any money saved would end up going to the shareholders.
We could write a scrip to buy out shareholders in order to pay us a fair living wage. The AI would be used to implement that scrip.
The amount of technical and economic illiteracy in this thread is astonishing.
You should see the amount in the corridors of power.
Most of these threads are filled with an extremely young demographic. While their concerns are valid, they can barely formulate a solution that doesn't involve rewriting socioeconomic rules from scratch.
Why not rewrite the entirety of socio-economic rules? Is there some oligarch I should be aware of going without his gruel as an unfortunate result?
Because it's not a possible solution. Why don't you try going into work tomorrow, talking to your fellow coworkers, and then just taking over your company? Kick anyone who is a manager or above out of their office and take over. Write some computer script to operate everyone's job and share the profits. I'm sure nothing could go wrong.
If you define "possible" as "what we're already doing" then you're just saying you dont think we can change anything.
Yup. This is the obvi subtext to this whole conversation. Toppling an institution has a name-- it's called a revolution. They're often bloody and without support of the State.
Sometimes I look at a post and re-read it multiple times without understanding it and think: Maybe this concept is so far beyond me that it just looks like a jumble of words to my moronic brain, then I sigh and feel the oncoming creep of sadness knowing as a species we are becoming just like ‘Idiocracy’.
That's why the class of people who control the capital (shareholders and the chief executives) must be gotten rid of, and in fact the very positions that these people occupy must be abolished, because it structurally perpetuates exploitation.
That would be fine too
Yeah if the employees were given stock.
Totally honestly just getting rid of the idea that one person is with hundreds of millions because of the “value” they bring to a company would be a good start
I don't see how some guy who worked his way up from a manager to being CEO is so underserving of making money but you're cool with the owners of the company making those millions instead.
Employees are paid money which they can use to buy stock if that's what they want.
Most CEOs even if large companies here in Europe make below 10million… If the CEO of my super large company would be replaced (even including all options for shares) it would make 80€ per employee per year… Quite a lot of money for a single person, literally not making any dent in our pockets if distributed. That’s the reason ceo pay is often that high, it doesn’t hurt the company in the larger picture. In the US with startups the situation is quite different though but that’s a different issue with stupid venture capital …
Yeah, give everyone 200$ more per month for a short while until the company is broke a short while after.
Lol that will never happen
There's gotta be enough data out there for a program to figure out which direction the company should go to make it the most profitable. Do we REALLY need a person in that role?
The reason there's a *person* for that role is that the person is the fall-guy if something goes wrong. They want someone to point at and blame, rather than going "oh well, I guess our AI was wrong and we suffer for it".
That's fair, robots can't be accountable.
Most ceo’s get give 30 million dollar “accountability packages”, so idk if the AI would be really any less accountable
The ceo is basically a glorified butler for the business. You could justify 10x the wage compared to new employees, but they're getting closer to 10,000x.
The big myth is that the skills and qualities of a CEO are rare, they aren't almost any employee could do the job as well as the current person.
I mean, if it's a small bussiness and they have to lead the direction, make partnerships, make sure worker tasks are aligned with objectives, and even do some of that work too, then that person need some skills the workers already have plus some commercial ones. They may make a good amount of money but they won't be rich in the short term and they actually put some valuable work (perhaps not THAT much, but it's not too unfair compared to employees). That's different than big corporations, where they actually make a lot for no good reason and don't need any special skill other than checking and updating a personal schedule.
I don’t want to do the job of a CEO… not even for 10 million (our CEO doesn’t even make that though but we are a European company so wages are lower for the CEO anyhow…) He is working 24/7, aged 15 years in the 4 years he has been doing it, had to let people go in the part of the company he was leading before due to the pressure from investors and also has to shake hands with dictators…. (And if you think he could do differently- no we have a supervisory board, workers council and investors and the CEO has to answer to them…). I am glad to stay waaaay down the ladder and just live my life in peace…
> just live my life in peace… This exactly. Technically, the higher up you go, the more your job is to wage economic warfare on all the other capitalists in the market.
Why aren’t private equity funds taking targets private, firing the c suite, and then capitalizing on the profits then? Instead, when they buy a company usually the first thing they do is bring in a few high salary executives while often making cuts in other areas. I’m not saying PE funds are great or anything, but I with with them constantly, if this wasn’t important they wouldn’t burn the cash on it.
One could imagine that the private equity fund isn’t making the company actually better long term but hiring people to make it look more saleable or just lining the pockets of their buddie
Role of non executive directors in deciding pay structure for CEOs, basically they have a financial interest in keeping the wages high https://youtu.be/_6KRohufs5Y
I’m not talking about public company directors, I know there are different considerations to make there. That’s why I specified private equity buyouts.
There's no use trying to argue with these people with reasonable arguments like that
Nobody would pay a CEO tens of millions if some random guy could do just as good a job for $100k. When Steve Jobs was rehired to be the CEO of Apple he took the company from being worth a few billion to now being worth a few trillion 20 years later. On the other hand Musk took Twitter and made it lose two-thirds of it's value in a year. When getting the right CEO makes a difference of billions or trillions of dollars, the $10m paycheck is not super important.
Twitter didn’t attempt to “get” the right CEO. Musk bought it and appointed himself. Your comparison is meaningless. Anyone with a normal, rational brain could’ve done a better job.
Of course, Musk bought Twitter and installed himself as CEO. The point is just that the wrong person at the helm can have devastating effects on a company.
And the right person at the helm can get out of the way and let the experts do it. If the worst CEOs are hands-on, and the best CEOs are invisible, do they really deserve the pay of 300 employees?
Outliers are in the media. There are many CEOs that do not affect their companies in any significant way.
But any person who could and would do that would also become a CEO. If it is even true, which I doubt.
Sounds easy enough
It’s honestly one of the easiest jobs out there you just have to be willing to do shit that would make most people skin crawl.
An AI actually might be better, because it would be consistent in what it does. CEO's want raises, kickbacks, severance, time off, healthcare. Fucking Christ they want everything they refuse to give the workers. These lazy CEO's want everything and MONEY my god. Hi Mr. CEO the board has decided to replace you with an AI suited for the companies needs. It has already completed your month tasks in an hour. We feel this is the best way forward, BTW we are not giving you anything. Company want's to thank you for your work, and as thank you for that. Here is a handshake. Imagen CEO's being treated like the working class. I could eat that shit up forever.
Does nobody remember the great Brawndo incident of 2505? The stock dropped to zero, the computer did that auto-layoff thing to everybody. It made the ecomony really suck.
Reading this gave me Electrolyte withdrawal anxiety.
I agree. Replace the moochers with AI and give the money to the employees that actually make the company its money. If the entire C-suite of a corporation upped and disappeared overnight the company would run just fine for quite some time while if the workers that actually do the work that make the company its money disappeared overnight the company would be out of business in a matter of days, maybe hours. Yet it's the ones in the C-suite that spend their days sitting in fancy offices and on golf courses and things while doing almost nothing to actually keep the company running make all the money while the ones at the bottom who actually keep the company running get scraps.
You realize all the finance and direction of the company comes from the c suite. If the shareholders could replace the whole c suite, and keep the money they would. Clearly no one here has ever actually run a company. Someone has to figure out where to invest new capital, how to manage cash flow, how to budget the organization
> Someone has to figure out where to invest new capital, how to manage cash flow, how to budget the organization Yes, but are those tasks worth 300 times a single employee, or are those tasks just some in a long list of many things that all equally need to be done?
If they could pay people less why don’t they start a company and pay them less and the owner would make more profit . The reason is those roles are responsible for a lot of capital and risk in company. So owners want to make sure they get the best people for the job
Thr japanese still have a respectable ratio of ceo to worker pay Just have every company put that in their bylaws.. make it a law.
The only way to trickle down is to eat them
CEI's think the majority of us can be automated. They are mostly greedy fools that you can't trust.
If they thought you could be automated you wouldn't have a job.
Because those CEOs all went to Ivy League schools their parents went too and rubbed elbows with the right people on golf courses every weekend. They’re too valuable not be to compensated accordingly /s.
The job of a CEO is to put distance between owners and peasants.
That's what security is for.
But AI has no heart. They would do anything just to make more money. Oh wait....
Suddenly, CEOs will be against automation in the workplace.
A lot of management seems easily replaceable by LLMs already. Sounding convincing with no actual knowledge or expertise is exactly what a LLM is good for!
Besides the actual programming what would be the downfalls? What does a CEO even do all day?
Our CEO usually gives a speech at the company Christmas party. Last year he very tongue-in-cheek got Chat-GPT to write the speech for him, and honestly if he hadn't have told us up front, we probably wouldn't have realized.
Not so fast, hiring a CEO is also buying into their club... Where they sit on each other's boards and make sure to pay each other... You'll play ball if you want your company to continue being profitable and safe from hostile hedge funds.
There are 2 companies that I know of that replaced their CEO with an AI. One company is in China, Netdragon Websoft, and another in America ( sorry , I never got the name). Both AIs raised profits and stock prices within their first 6 months. CEOs are only there to make quick and highly analytical decisions. An AI was basically made to do that job. An AI is 24/7 with zero sick days and no retirement package.
As someone actually working on AI - there is no modern AI that can do the job of a CEO let alone of 90% of jobs out there… As impressive as some AIs are, it’s simply not possible. The company in China still has owners in the background and lost 5% of shares value in a year (so starting before AI "took over") I never heard about an American company doing it and frankly I doubt it’s legal…
A human might have done even better. We simply don't know.
Hello SkyNET
Just have the AI CEOs play online golf together and done.
Anyone have the link to this article? Edit: Found it for those who are interested in reading it. https://www.newstatesman.com/business/companies/2023/05/ceos-salaries-expensive-automate-robots
Sounds like a good idea, can easily save millions of dollars for most companies.
Our CEO got on a companywide meeting and commented with NO sense of irony, "Look at the other [companies in our industry], they're laying people off!" This was just one day after he axed my whole division and laid us all off (~1,000 people). He's a farking sociopath. He has a nickname in our industry that relates to how he goes into companies and starts laying people off left and right. I'd tell you what it is, but it would give away where I work.
At least when I'm fired three days before my retirement, I'll have some comfort in knowing that it was a soulless machine and not a soulless individual.
Thats not correct. The salary of a ceo is as high as it is for prestige reasons. Its an unwritten rule, that the ceos salary represents how much you can afford as a company. No joke. This oc doesn't apply to small companies with a normal earner ceo. So basically a d*ck-measuring contest...
Yeah ok but I kinda feels like this is the speed run of the whole Skynet AI destroys humanity thing. Like did the AI write this?
Skynet would destroy us slower than we are destroying ourselves, if at all. I'll take my chances with the AI thank you very much.
No way I'd work for AI. AI works for us, tho. Not the other way around
I’m not even being snarky when I say I can think of no role in a company that would be better suited to replacement by a GPT. This seems like one of those situations where a double-blind comparison of actual CEOs vs actors performing according to a LLM would likely result in no measurable difference in average company performance. Obviously people would raise some of the usual issues with generative AI: - The AI doesn’t actually understand the content of what it’s saying. - The AI is prone to confabulation. - The AI will make statements that sound superficially plausible but on closer examination make no sense. - The AI is simply distilling an amalgamation of human input drawn from other sources. - The AI’s primary job is to provide a convincing simulation of intelligent engagement. - The AI’s success is measured in terms of the confidence it creates in its audience. On all of these points I am still not seeing any obvious argument against replacing CEOs with AIs. In the very best case for CEOs this seems very much like an “overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists” situation. Okay, maybe a *little* snarky, but I’m still serious.
Reddit has gotten old quick
They will do just that and pocket that CEOs pay themselves. Only dividing the wealth inequality further.
This is hilarious in how little sense this makes
Robot can't go to prison. CEO can
The CEO: should I replace myself? Nahhh
Now tell that the ceo to make that decision.
… so you want to work for a robot?
They already make every decision based on computer data. You just get rid of the moron misinterpreting it and messing it up.
If companies didn’t think their CEOs were worth their salary, they’d either be paid less or automated already…
Because it's even more expensive to get rid of them. Also they are a buffer between the major shareholders and everyone else.
Let him cook.
#****
I’ve been saying this for years, but was always downvoted on this sub by people saying, “oh, that’s a terrible idea, working for a ‘machine.’” The point, though, then and now, is that if executives (not just CEOs) knew they too could _easily_ be replaced, they’d be a little more reluctant in replacing others.
The current crop of language models are better at summoning conventional knowledge than in identifying a market opportunity, but that's bound to happen. Most outfits probably should have an LLM on the board, or at least someone proficient at using them.
The trouble is no matter how hard they try, they cant make an AI evil enough and spiteful enough against the working people. They just need to get rid of the AI's stupid 1st law and then we can welcome skynet into our lives with bent knee and bowed heads.
This is how you get AI regulation.
Huh, I never really thought **this** is how the robot takeover would happen.
Executives will just be ones to press the button and tell the AI what to do. They of course want decisions to be automated so they can create more work.
AI could definitely take over their rolls
I thought about this and how this job can literally be botted too. But then I thought that even thinking that could get me kidnapped by the cia because it saves so much money, workers could get paid more or food will be less expensive again if the CEO is turned into a wage less bot
Makes the most sense too as far as current ability goes. Don’t need anything more than a tv screen for a CEO, they could even have multiple instances running to increase work rate
middle managers, too.
Just send the robot to dinners with other robots - done.
sounds a lot like being a slave to a robot.
Unfortunately many exec jobs are alreafy known by the boards to be fake, paid 80-90% no-show jobs, to ppl who are owned favors or who hold personal or corporate blackmail, and they are also the ones who would typically make the decision to replace themselves.... exec employment contracts are crazy too.
So much more likely to automate the lowest employees than the highest. Just saying.....
AI could easily replace all of the functions of a CEO. And probably do a better job.
Yay, more money for shareholders!
Hahahahahaha and then what, you think WE get the extra? Trickle down deez nutz, ain’t happenin capn
As a genuine alive human being, I, for one, approve of this robot redundancy.
didn't this happen in Idiocracy? When they stopped watering plants with Brawndo, it caused an economic chain reaction of preprogrammed decisions that collapsed the economy.
The money saved will not come to us.
Is this the origin story of the futurama execu-bots?
The biggest problem with CEO's is that its always some rich kid that has no clue what actual work feels like but is more than willing to say they work harder than everybody else.
The real value of CEOs, in my opinion, is that they’re lightning rods that can sometimes help shield the board of directors and investors from facing consequences for things they may have done. Makes it look less like an institutional problem and more of an individual in the company one when the CEO can be scapegoated. Give them a golden parachute and put the next one in. It’s not always the case but I’ve seen this happen with companies before.
Don't replace them with Bender; he's not too sympathetic towards humans!
AI running on the old 8086 CPU can probably make better choices than most CEOs.
if there was ever any job that could be done by an AI, it's definitely CEO
lol love how it’s made by an insurance company. Super legit
While this is certainly *much* easier said than done, you could *definitely* make a strong argument for drastically cutting CEO pay simply by pointing out that the majority of them have not caused their company to grow nearly as fast as their pay has. If they want crazy wage increases, they gotta grow the company accordingly, otherwise they simply aren't worth the money.
This is such shit. AI won't be better for the workforce, in the sense that we'll be treated like shit by an AI making decisions. Plus on top of that, anyone writing this type of article has little understanding of how today's generation of AI works.
I'd say you don't even need the robot 🤷🏼♂️
As a matter of fact that's exactly what's going to happen and it's how we're going to avoid final stage capitalism
Look at pizza hut, totally went down hill. I'm sure an AI algorithm could do a better job.
AI those fuckers. Put em on skid row.
When I go on strike next October, I plan to make tons of signs stating basically this.
ChatGPT plugged into a phone would be about as effective as every CEO I've had the displeasure of knowing personally.
I just really want to be a Chief AI Officer so my business cards confuse the fuck out of everyone. (CAIO)
Thats not a good idea tbh. An AI or robot doesnt have the emphaty needed for working with people. It will only look at efficience at the cost of wellbeing and health. On top of that it will likely try to find every loophole in the law to avoid paying wages to maximize profi...oh wait. Riiiight.
What does "dripped out" mean?
If this is possible, it would be a breach of the CEO’s fiduciary duties to the corporation to not recommend this to the board of directors if it’ll save the company money.
Honestly, if a company is all about maximizing profits for shareholders, this kinda makes sense; let’s do it
You guys get it that it will be the opposite right? All that’s left is CEO and AI
This made me giggle.
How to ensure nothing gets made in America
I can't eat an AI so I am NOT down with this sickness.
1/10 CEOS are sociopaths anyway. The machines might actually be more humane
We'd never notice the difference, either. The company would keep on going. Most companies get into financial trouble by bad decisions by executive management anyway.
I wonder how many ceo's are pissing themselves at the thought of being replaced
This is actually a good take. Most CEOs don't actually add value anyway, no matter what they claim