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

Ask Lemmy

34581 readers
1056 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 14 minutes ago

If AI ends up running companies better than people

Okay, important context there. The current AI bubble will burst sooner or later. So, this is hypothetical future AGI.

Yes, if the process of human labour becoming redundant continues uninterrupted, it's highly likely, although since CEOs make their money from the intangible asset of having connections more than the actual work they'll be one of the last to go.

But, it won't continue uninterrupted. We're talking about rapidly transitioning to an entirely different kind of economy, and we should expect it will be similarly destabilising as it was to hunter gatherer societies that suddenly encountered industrial technology.

If humans are still in control, and you still have an entire top 10% of the population with significant equity holdings, there's not going to be much strategy to the initial stages. Front line workers will get laid off catastrophically, basically, and no new work will be forthcoming. The next step will be a political reaction. If some kind of make-work program is what comes out of it, human managers will still find a place in it. If it's basic income, probably not. And if there's not some kind of restriction on the top end of wealth, as well, you're at risk of creating a new ruling elite with an incentive to kill everyone else off, but that's actually a digression from the question.

When it comes to the longer term, I find inspiration in a blog post I read recently. Capital holdings will eventually become meaningless compared to rights to natural factors. If military logic works at all the same way, and there's ever any kind of war, land will once again be supreme among them. There weren't really CEOs in feudalism, and even if we manage not to regress to autocracy there probably won't be a place for them.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Would be cool & funny if they did.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

That would free up a whole shitload of money for the citizens! /s

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

That will be a whole shitload of money for the shareholders

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I could imagine a world where whole virtual organizations could be spun up, and they can just run in the background creating whole products, marketing them, and doing customer support, etc.

Right now the technology doesn't seem there yet, but it has been rapidly improving, so we'll see.

I could definitely see rich CEOs funding the creation of a "celebrity" bot that answers questions the way they do. Maybe with their likeness and voice, so they can keep running companies from beyond the grave. Throw it in one of those humanoid robots and they can keep preaching the company mission until the sun burns out.

What a nightmare.

[–] kingprawn@feddit.org 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Check out the novel Accelerando by Charles Stross, that thing is part of the plot.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out!

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Non-founder CEO's typically get brought in to use their connections to improve the company of is an internal promotion to signify the new direction of the company. They also provide a single throat to choke when things go wrong.

What will be more likely to happen is that CEO's will use AI to vibe manage their companies and use the AI output as justification. We don't have enough data to tell if AI helps the best or worst CEO's.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 26 minutes ago* (last edited 25 minutes ago)

United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was utilizing AI technology to mass murder people for shareholder profit

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 6 points 4 hours ago

Companies never outsourced the CEO position to countries which traditionally have lower CRO salaries but plenty of competency (e.g. Japan), so they won't do this either. It's because CEOs are controlled by boards, and the boards are made up of CEOs from other companies. They have a vested interest in human CEOs with inflated salaries.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch?

Yes. It might be unorthodox at first, but they could just take a vote, and poof, done.

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.

Wat?

No. What?

So you just used circular logic to make the AI a "person"... maybe you're saying once it is running the corporation, it is the corporation? But no.

Anyway, corporations are "considered people" in the US under the logic that corporations are, at the end of the day, just collections of people. So you can, say, go to a town hall to voice your opinion as an individual. And you can gather up all your friends to come with you, and form a bloc which advocates for change. You might gain a few more friends, and give your group a name, like "The Otter Defence League." In all these scenarios, you and others are using your right to free speech as a collective unit. Citizens United just says that this logic also applies to corporations.

That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselve

CEOs wouldn't have to "replace themselves" any more than you have to find a replacement if your manager fires you from Dairy Queen.

[–] fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Y'all are all missing the real answer. CEOs have class solidarity with shareholders. Think about about how they all reacted to the death of the United health care CEO. They'll never get rid of them because they're one of them. Rich people all have a keen awareness of class consciousness and have great loyalty to one another.

Us? We're expendable. They want to replace us with machines that can't ask for anything and don't have rights. But they'll never get rid of one of their own. Think about how few CEOs get fired no matter how poor of a job they do.

P.S. Their high pay being because of risk is a myth. Ever heard of a thing called the golden parachute? CEOs never pay for their failures. In fact when they run a company into the ground, they're usually the ones that receive the biggest payouts. Not the employees.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Loyalty lasts right up until the math says otherwise.

[–] roundup5381@sh.itjust.works 1 points 45 minutes ago

One must include social capital in the math

[–] fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago

The math has never made sense for CEOs

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Wouldn't they just remove the CEO from their role and they would just become another rich shareholder?

[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 35 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Several years ago I read an article that went in to great detail on how LLMs are perfectly poised to replace C-levels in corporations. I went on to talk about how they by nature of design essentially do the that exact thing off the bat, take large amounts of data and make strategic decisions based on that data.

I wish I could find it to back this up, but regardless ever since then, I've been waiting for this watershed moment to hit across the board...

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 19 points 13 hours 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 34 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network 3 points 11 hours 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 13 hours 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 8 hours ago

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.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours 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 13 hours ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bongles@lemmy.zip 7 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

AI? Yes probably. Current AI? No. I do think we'll see it happen with an LLM and that company will probably flop. Shit how do you even prompt for that.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No, because someone has to be the company's scapegoat... but if the ridiculous post-truth tendencies of some societies increase, then maybe "AI" will indeed gain "personhood", and in that case, maybe?

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 3 points 12 hours ago

I don't see any other future.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago

Should be way easier to replace a CEO. No need for a golden parachute, if the AI fails, you just turn it off.

But I'd imagine right now you have CEOs being paid millions and using an AI themselves. Worst of both worlds.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

in all dialectical seriousness, if it appeases the capitalists, it will happen. “first they came with ai for the help desk…” kind of logic here. some sort of confluence of Idiocracy and The Matrix will be the outcome.

[–] Ging@anarchist.nexus 2 points 13 hours ago

You mean dialectical whimsiness

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Isn’t this sorta paradoxical? Like either ceos are actually worth what insane money they make, or a palm pilot could replace them, but somehow they are paid ridiculous amounts for…. What?

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

No, it's not paradoxical. You are conflating time points.

I won't debate the "value" of CEOs, but in this system, their value is subject to market conditions like any other. Human computers were valued much more before electrical computers were created. Aluminum was worth more than gold before a fast and cheap extraction process was invented.

You could not replace a CEO with a Palm pilot 10 years ago.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

It can do so even better than a human. They would just announce a patch for it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I guess in theory there would be no need for a fall guy as AI would cover all angles.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›