If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch? A board isn’t paying a CEO $20 million a year for tradition, they’re paying for results. If an AI can do the job cheaper and get better returns, investors will force it.
And since corporations are already treated as “people” under the law, replacing a human CEO with an AI isn’t just swapping a worker for a machine, it’s one “person” handing control to another.
That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselves, not because they want to, but because the system leaves them no choice. And AI would be considered a “person” under the law.
From what people on Lemmy say, a CEO (and board) isn’t there to do a good job they are there to be a fall guy if something goes wrong, protecting shareholders from prosecution. Can AI do that?
How do they take the fall exactly,“millions in a golden parachute, and high-fives on the way to next ceo job?” At least you could turn the AI off.
I mean, that’s one way it happens. CEOs can serve different purposes, but a CEO who’s job it is is to be hated and take the blame for actions the board company wants done then get fired with a payout and move on to the next job? That’s definitely a thing.
An AI wouldn’t be able to do that job because they can’t be fired. Or on second thought, the board can change the AI program to a different company every few years.
It can do so even better than a human. They would just announce a patch for it
That’s brilliant! So long as the AI company has a board to take the fall for any big AI mistakes.
AI will assess all risks and make a bet, if it fails it will have a fund available to compensate the losses.
I guess in theory there would be no need for a fall guy as AI would cover all angles.
But the fall guy is for things they know they shouldn’t do. They aren’t trying to only do the things they should.
Evil companies will have evil AI