There’s some company in … can’t remember if it was Hong Kong, or Taiwan… they did that, & it improved the bottom-line.
AND they didn’t have to pay the thing!
Win-win, all 'round…
It was a specific division in a conglomerate, iirc…
They did it as an experiment.
_ /\ _
The rich have class solidarity. They’re not going to casually fuck each other over like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Chances are the shareholders with enough power to sway things are… Other CEOs though
I would be all for new regulation that changed that. In order to go public you cannot have a majority shareholder. I won’t pretend I know what I’m talking about. But my gut says if you’re going public you wish your business to grow to a point that it’ll have large impacts to a good chunk of people and so there should be more democratic decision making in places including adding people local to these businesses in as stake holders.
Like the decision should be that if you’re soliciting more money to grow, you forfeit ownership because your business now becomes something new. It becomes a shared public interest. So you can’t have an Elon or Steve Jobs. You have a board who answers to stake holders without a single one having some ultimate power. Then you must bring in a certain amount of employees into that process
They all sit on each others boards.
However it just takes a few activist board members who have big time fomo and want to be early in with a virtual CEO.
I’m sure I will be put out to pasture first, but at least I will be laughing from my cardboard box.
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.
You should be getting letters or emails about upcoming shareholder meetings and proxy votes. If not, that’s a problem.
Apparently Vanguard has a whole proxy voting system that I left on the defaults!
there is no rationale to capitalism, it’s more like a heist
It’s one of the most rationale things there is
Who’s going to make that decision? The CEO?
The board who determines the CEO’s pay for a public company. For a private company whoever owns the company - if that’s the CEO then maybe they’d implement the AI CEO then just retire.
then maybe they’d implement the AI CEO then just retire.
I think this is the most realistic scenario. CEO outsources her workload to AI as much as possible while still collecting a paycheque.
You would not want to use AI anywhere it matters. Only in places where it does not matter if you get it right the first, second or even the third time, like customer support.
We’re going inception style now, but then ceo would be even more fitting, don’t you think?
It doesn’t matter, so … the CEO is perfect application!
CEO’s are already using AI as a tool to help them understand their companies by dumping their company data into these models as a way to understand their companies.
I just don’t see any company creating an AI to replace a CEO in its entirety, yet.
Just set growth to 10%!
Every one of us is utterly replaceable, including the billionaires and multi-billionaires.
For all the status quo that they push for, they don’t actually do anything special.
You could take the average billionaire, strip them of all their worth and hand it over to some millionaire, and basically nothing would change as far as the planet is concerned.
This is not a scenario where we are all NPCs to their game. We are all players, but more to the point, they are as expendable and interchangeable as we are.
Now there is an idea. But the money that the CEO would be paid would go to workers right? Right?!
Anakin.jpg
For a publicly traded business, this could greatly benefit the share holder with a more efficient AI CEO to steer the ship.
Less sexual harassment lawsuits too
I know. Right? The rich protect the rich. That’s why. They have their own union and you aren’t part of it.
You’d probably get fewer hallucinations.
It is amazing how human CEOs manage to surpass a 100% hallucination rate.
Because the purpose of a CEO is wealth transfer. Controlling the company is purely incidental.
This wasn’t particularly true all that long ago. Huge buyouts and benefits for CEOs are both quite recent phenomena. Shareholders had a much better split not that long ago, and the social/family dynamics haven’t had long to change so drastically.
Because they’re the decision makers, why would they remove themselves from that position? Lol
Because we know language models can’t run a business.
They can’t do any of this other shit either. That’s not stopping us from doing it
For a publicly owned company the CEO is in the role because the Board hired them. The Board wants money but doesn’t have the attention span to run anything themselves so they get a person who can steer the ship in The Market. A bot doesn’t plan, it only reacts. That’s an interim CEO at best but not someone who has to approve budgets, product design/experience, and run the people side of things. Plus a boy hallucination could be devastating and no one would know until it’s too late.
AI just doesn’t have a place.
On top off all that, company culture flows from the top down. Tell me what you think of your company culture, I’ll tell you about your CEO. Also, imagine the sheer disgust of ultimately reporting to AI. People might have a few giggles at first, but moral would crash pretty quickly.
