this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
202 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34604 readers
1741 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (6 children)

They... don't make strategic decisions... That's part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The funny part is that I can't tell whether you're talking about LLMs or the C-suite.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Buddam tsssss! I too enjoy making fun of big business CEOs as mindless trend-followers. But even "following a trend" is a strategy attributable to a mind with reasoning ability that makes a choice. Now the quality of that reasoning or the effectiveness of that choice is another matter.

As tempting as it is, dehumanizing people we find horrible also risks blinding us to our own capacity for such horror as humans.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you're getting caught up in semantics.

"Following a trend" is something a series of points on a grid can do.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Y’know, the whole “don’t dehumanize the poor biwwionaiwe’s :(((” works for like, nazis, because they weren’t almost all clinical sociopaths.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Lol the point about "don't dehumanize" has nothing to do about them or feeling bad for them. They can fuck right off. It's about us not pretending these aren't human monsters, as if being human makes us inherently good, as if our humanity somehow makes us inherently above doing monstrous things. No, to be human is to have the capacity for doing great good and for doing the monstrously terrible.

Nazis aren't monsters because they're inhuman, they're monsters because of it. Other species on the planet might overhunt, displace, or cause depopulation through inadvertent ecological change, but only humanity commits genocide.

[–] OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 day ago

I'd argue they do make strategic decisions, its just that the strategy is always increasing quarterly earnings and their own assets.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They do indeed make strategic decisions, just only in favor of the short term profits of shareholders. It’s “strategy” that a 6 yr old could execute, but strategy nonetheless

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is closer to what I mean by strategy and decisions: https://matthewdwhite.medium.com/i-think-therefore-i-am-no-llms-cannot-reason-a89e9b00754f

LLMs can be helpful for informing strategy, and simulating strings of words that may can be perceived as a strategic choice, but it doesn't have it's own goal-oriented vision.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Oh sorry I was referring to CEOs

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

You're right. But then look at Musk. if anyone was ripe for replacement with AI, it's him.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Sure, but that true AI won't just involve an LLM, it will be a complex of multi-modal models with specialization and hierarchy--thats basically what big AIs like GPT-5 are doing.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago

That's part of why we hate them no?

Hate isn't generally based on rational decision making.