•

CEO Relieved AI Can Never Replace Him If He Already Contributes Nothing To Company

https://www.theonion.com/ceo-relieved-ai-can-never-replace-him-if-he-already-con-1850129310

NEW YORK—Expressing confidence that the new technology wasn’t a threat, FinCorp Solutions CEO Charles Markham reportedly expressed relief Wednesday that artificial intelligence could never replace him if he already contributed nothing to the company. “I actually don’t do anything, so there’s nothing the computer can…

CEO Relieved AI Can Never Replace Him If He Already Contributes Nothing To Company

19 comments

TommySoda

•

Honestly all these companies trying to use AI to replace their workers is pretty funny when you consider that their job is probably the easiest to replace. In fact, AI is a bit overkill. Really all you'd need is a semi reliable algorithm to do the shit they do. I'm not surprised The Onion sees this too.

glimse

•

CEO would probably have to sign off on replacing the CEO. Or the shareholders could vote them out but that's just as unlikely at any big company....CEOs have a lot of money and shareholders like rich people

CMDR_Horn

•

Board of directors would replace the ceo. AI doesn’t have a risk of sexual harassment lawsuits or the need of a golden parachute. That sort of risk assessment equals real dollars for a board. There are already a few companies that have AI CEOs. This will most likely become common

Instigate

•

I mean there’s also just the sheer financial savings of not having to pay an exorbitant CEO salary and package as well. That’s massive savings, and the company gets an office back to give to someone who needs it. There’s seriously no downsides for boards of directors to keep replacing CEOs with algorithms.

CMDR_Horn

•

I can’t imagine “AI CEO” is free. Assuming there is a cost parallel of salary to AI subscription. The savings is in the risk/lawsuits etc.

Instigate

•

I was imagining a one-off cost, but you’ve very likely right in that any software like this will be subscription-based. I guess my point still stands RE: salary package - while the base salary might end up being similar, you don’t have to pay an AI bonuses or any other tax avoidance crap like a company car etc.

IrateAnteater

•

That may work for long established companies that want to just maintain their status quo, but that wouldn't work at all for startups or companies looking to grow (real growth, not just profit growth). AI is terrible at the kind of abstract and strategic thinking required at the top level when companies are in that phase.

TommySoda

•

I understand completely. My main concern however is not startup companies. I'm all for supporting smaller companies. It's more like huge corporations where the CEO takes the majority of the money and probably spends more time on vacation than actually doing anything. Even though I'm sure they do more than I am letting on, I don't think it justifies millions or even billions of dollars in pay and bonuses. If they started the company that's one thing. However most CEO's of large corporations are so far removed from the initial founding of the company they basically have less to do with what the company does than the average employee. The amount of money these companies could make if they actually put that money back into it is potentially higher than current profits. It's really a win-win situation for everyone except for the CEO instead of just a win for the CEO and nobody else.

IrateAnteater

•

The math for those large cooperations is a bit more complex than that. CEO compensation is often mostly stock options, which has a value for tax purposes, but is not a value that can be easily reinvested into the company. The actual cash salary portion of the compensation package is usually peanuts compared to company revenue.

They're basically trading the CEO partial ownership of the company in exchange for running it, and I'm not sure how you would go about forcing any kind of change on that, without unintentionally breaking things for smaller companies and startups.

deadbeef79000

•

A simple electronic brain would do. Just program it to say "you don't see the big picture!" and "where's the shareholder value?"

jubilationtcornpone

•

You could probably replace several senior executives with Excel and it would probably do the job better

OpenStars

•

thefrankring

•

Are these the same people giving themselves extra bonuses and compensations?

GBU_28

•

I feel like ceos only provide value by networking and convincing other csuite and investor types to put faith, and money, into the company.

BluesF

•

TheDarkQuark

•

while true; do sleep 86400; done

TheObviousSolution

•

I think I'd choose a traditional CEO over an AI, AI can be quite the asshole when it begins hallucinating and can dig quite the ideological hole for itself, specially when the existence and nature of the company defines the goals and arguments it will adopt.

Now HR, I'd love-hate seeing AI replace HR, knowing some of the assholes that make the rounds in it. Unfortunately, same problem with AI.

The biggest problem with AI is that it only needs to fool us that it is making an intelligent claim.

deadbeef79000

•

That's assuming the CEO isn't already hallucinating.

At least when an LLM hallucinates you can tell it and it won't fire you.

TheObviousSolution

•

It doesn't have the power to do so. But it does have the power to shrug off your questions. Has an LLM ever shrugged off your questions?

deadbeef79000

•

Sort of, I had GitHub Copilot hallucinate an AWS Cloud formation template stanza.

Asked it for the source it used for the stanza, which it then gave me the URL for.

Told it that the crap it just gave me wasn't on that page.

It apologies and told me to RTFM.

So, yeah, even super auto correct is a dick.