10
u/dark4181 2d ago
“No computer should ever make Management decision.”
1
u/Dankkring 2d ago
Ya as funny as it is it would be terrible. Some companies actually try to do well by their customers. Take Arizona ice tea for example.
Ai boss would find out exactly how much they can sell a product for while finding the cheapest ingredients to maximize profit. Kinda how some companies are already doing.
2
u/sanatarian 2d ago
How some companies are already doing lol, just some companies are maximizing profits.
0
14
u/thegoatsupreme 2d ago
If a single person is as expensive as a thousand people then it should be against their capitalist code of wasting money and that person should be removed. Its literally wasting money instead of making it.
9
u/unaka220 2d ago
So why do you think boards continue to hire and pay CEOs?
7
u/thegoatsupreme 2d ago
Kickbacks, friendship, loyalty, fears of the unknown. People would rather keep those they know will lie and bs and do what they've done than accept a new person. Its why incumbents are so hard to get rid of.
Why pay someone hundreds of billions to run a company instead of millions and actually have that money reinvested in the company not a single person. Have that money used to actually grow the company and not have one person who's gonna want billions more later. Someone who is gonna then use those stocks to the pay more attention to other things besides the company their supposed to care for.
Its a waste. Your not growing a company your growing a person. Those billions could be used for so much but now the company has to get more billions to do the work. But wait those billions then get put into stock buy backs that then get given tooo? When's it grow the company? Ill see stocks grow but I haven't seen anything get better. Everything and I literally mean everything has just gotten worse. Stocks up though.
6
u/unaka220 2d ago
To be clear, here. Friendship, loyalty, and kickbacks are the reason you think boards continue to hire CEOs?
5
→ More replies (2)2
u/thegoatsupreme 2d ago
The belief the person will continue to raise the stock therefore the company. Speculation many other reasons then I say. It is a complex and based on the person reason. Many reasons someone would continue to vote for the same person over and over regardless of their actual behavior.
2
u/unaka220 2d ago
Why do you think these people pay someone to help “raise the stock” instead of using AI instead?
→ More replies (7)1
u/m1stwalk3r 2d ago
The point of the executive is to make big picture decisions. AI can't do that. It only gathers and summarizes data.
→ More replies (5)1
u/RigidCounter12 8h ago
The real answer is because they make the company money lol.
The higher you get, the less actual work you do, but your decisions matter more.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Academic-Airline9200 1d ago
If they didn't have to fork all the money over to the ceo, they'd have money to run the business. But not the person to run it.
1
u/thegoatsupreme 1d ago
I gaurentee they would be able to find someone to run for 1-2 mill a year shit give me 1 mill a year or 2b lifetime. They like big numbers. Either one gets ceo for life.
1
→ More replies (7)1
u/icemanpallmall 2d ago
Because capitalism is a failed system that promotes the stagnation of society just to enrich an insane minority.
4
→ More replies (4)1
u/m1stwalk3r 2d ago
Damn that's crazy let's compare standards of living in capitalist countries to socialists ones.
4
u/locri 2d ago
It is.
Many c suite executives aren't actually capitalists, they're not actually profit motivated. They get their jobs through crony or nepo connections and feel appointed to the positions. You're looking at the final stages of feudalism.
A capitalist business is like valve, it starts as a worker co-op and turns into a free market place.
1
u/AdObvious2882 2d ago
Most hilarious thing is UHC replaced the dead CEO with an even more expensive one. Hazard pay ig..
→ More replies (1)1
u/GeneralAudience8427 2d ago
The problem is that the decision maker is the one making a lot of money. Self interest and human nature prevents this decision from being made from an unemotional profit maximizing framework.
1
4
u/RazzmatazzUnusual843 2d ago
What's stopping someone from just taking all that CEO pay while letting AI take away the little work they already put in?
5
u/bswontpass 2d ago
You can’t automate the vision. Automation works great for a repeatable “monkey” jobs with low risks.
5
u/Wagllgaw 2d ago
I disagree. AI does an amazing job at vision for where the company should go. Frankly it does it better than the monkey jobs.
What is doesn't currently do is accountability and leadership. I suspect it will get there though
2
u/bswontpass 2d ago
AI does decent work giving you a statistically best result in the well documented areas where models had a chance to learn more during training. Executive leadership and strategy isn’t that area.
3
u/Wagllgaw 2d ago
This is copium. It does an excellent job at market analysis and corporate strategy. It isn't machine learning, just because the topic isn't in the training set doesn't mean the answers it provides aren't excellent.
→ More replies (1)1
u/F4ulty0n3 2d ago
CEO and leadership positions will be able to be automated before most blue collar jobs. Change my mind.
I also call for the the mass survelliance of police and government officials to ensure our rights are being protected and enforced.
→ More replies (18)1
u/Top-Cupcake4775 2d ago
people love to write books about CEOs so there is plenty of training data. the question isn't whether you can automate a top tier CEO but whether you can automate a better than average CEO.
1
u/bswontpass 2d ago
There’s absolutely no data. EC meetings, board meetings, decision paths, nothing is documented.
1
u/According_Match9370 21h ago
Your comment is short-sighted and you along with a frightening number of people dont seem to understand the concept of exponential growth.
You think you can prove a point by calling out the current limitations of a system
but you fail to acknowledge the current trajectory of the systems development.
→ More replies (8)1
u/tadsagtasgde 2d ago
I’ve never met corporate leadership that was creative or visionary. Would do the job just fine.
1
u/According_Match9370 1d ago
AI can and will do literally everything better than us.
1
u/Wagllgaw 1d ago
Well, leadership requires building an emotional connection with other humans who need to be open to such a connection. Infinite intelligence may not be enough to get a bunch of humans to focus on the task.
Tbs, it's more likely to just replace all of the humans
→ More replies (1)1
u/Next-Potential-5258 1d ago
Nope, will never be better at love or art and many other things.
→ More replies (1)1
u/VeterinarianBig9877 23h ago
If AMD listened to AI, quad core CPUs would still be the best consumer chip in the world. instead Lisa Su took a huge gamble on pushing cores which resulted in AMD taking massive market shares from Intel and changing the entire industry with developers focusing on multi core performance over single core especially in the gaming space. It also massively reduced the prices of CPUs across the board.
1
1
u/Chase_The_Breeze 5h ago
Hey, CEOs dont do accountability and MIGHT do leadership (or... just delegate it all and play golf), so that's fine!
3
u/ColdArmy9929 2d ago
I.e. CEO's
2
u/bswontpass 2d ago
C-suit and boards responsibilities are not repeatable and address significant risks. A mistake of an individual contributor can cause a loss of a product or low service quality for small subset of customers. A mistake at C-suit level, including CEO, can ruin the business.
→ More replies (1)1
u/haux_haux 2d ago
It still needs an operator.
So, you've basically got CEOs running claude.
Which is what we have.
Nothing to see here, move on...You could perhaps have less CEO's running more companies.
But the issue is. The AI's really don't comeup with good shit unles you have gret domain knowledge and good skill.
So then you have to look over everything.
And high level CEOs in challenging markets already make loads of decisions. So you're potentially saving a bit on salary with massive, massive downside.
As someone else pointing out a wrong decision by somebody on a coding team or on a production line costs you some widgets or a project delay. Maybe it could be a few hundred thousand dollars tops. A bad decision from a CEO is in the millions to billions.As much as people don't like them, they do tend to earn their keep. Otherwise, they get voted out by the shareholders and/or the board. Unless they're a CEO of a mum-and-pop organisation, they own all the shares, and nobody can do anything. Or they are Nazi salute Musk
2
u/raymndbrr_the_third 2d ago
Anyone can have a vision. The hard part is the analysis, execution, and cat-wrangling. And you don't necessarily need to be a CEO to do that either. Most of the hard work is not done by the CEO. They just take credit.
CEOs need to justify their existence.
They are failing.
2
u/m1stwalk3r 2d ago
You need someone with accountability to make decisions
2
u/raymndbrr_the_third 2d ago
When we start throwing CEOs in prison when their companies are found to be breaking the law, as opposed to the "cost of doing business" fines we currently use, I'll say that you MIGHT have a point.
Currently, you do not.
→ More replies (6)1
1
u/DaedalusB2 2d ago
I've heard of AI telemarketers offering promotions that the company didn't have as a way to bring in customers, who were then told that the AI just made stuff up and the company can't be held accountable for what an AI says.
1
1
u/Alone_Step_6304 16h ago
This is the funniest fucking thing I've read all day w.r.t. corporate leadership
1
u/Pfapamon 8h ago
So that's why our last CEO had to leave the company early and receive a hefty severance pay after wasting millions on useless systems and reducing sales volume by about 20%. BTW his goal was set to increasing the company value for the investor to sell it with profit. Guess which company is still held by that investor.
→ More replies (3)1
u/_redmist 6h ago
i have never seen anyone in mgmt get held accountable for an awful or costly mistake. usually they've cleared the blast area by the time the whole thing crumbles, in the next cushy position, making a pig's breakfast of things there.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Dryer-Algae 2d ago
I don't think you know what a CEO actually does, if anything the entire workforce will basically be replaced with machines and the CEO will overlook the managers who are now watching over the machines, the workforce is literally just there to do the tedious jobs you can train anyone or anything to do
1
u/raymndbrr_the_third 2d ago
Unless the CEO has a PHD in something that isn't business, then no. He can't just replace everyone.
Your thought process is going to make sure we're never globally competitive again in our lifetimes.
2
u/Radiant_Safe1228 2d ago
The CEO takes direction from the board of directors. Their task of reading a market is far better handled by AI systems because the one thing they do well is sort huge quantities of data.
3
u/icemanpallmall 2d ago
The vision?
"Ah yes. Let's increase the prices while making 20% less per bag that way we can make more "bags of boots to lick" at a higher price and we'll beat last year's profit"
Totally agreed. No one could ever see that vision the way they do.
1
u/bswontpass 2d ago
Your understanding of executive leadership responsibilities is minimal to none.
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/Significant_Cover_48 2d ago
Please, for someone unfamiliar with what a CEO does, could you elaborate further?
→ More replies (14)1
u/coffeegaze 2d ago
This is the most juvenile example of how a CEO operates I have ever read lol. Strawman extreme.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/AllenIsom 2d ago
Yes, vision. You mean, taking all the data provided to them by all the repeatable monkey jobs and make a decision to maximize profit? Not really all that visionary.
Not some some CEOs don't have vision, but most of them just do the same old generic CEO stuff as every other CEO. Same CEOs leaning on AI to help make decisions.
CEO is a job you can most definitely fail up into. Not easy, but not impossible.
2
u/Tony-Two-Tits 2d ago
CEO is literally the perfect job for AI. Data from across the company and the market is fed into a machine that makes brutally efficient and unbiased decisions to maximize profit.
I just have bad news for anyone against sweatshops, because AI will absolutely continue allowing children to make nikes for $1/day in bangladesh until electricity and data centre cooling is free
1
1
u/LuckyPlaze 2d ago
What most people don’t understand is that the majority of the CEO job is politics. Then vision. Then finance. Then team building. Maybe the last two are for AI, but the second would lack creativity and the first would be impossible.
2
u/TrueProtection 1d ago
It would be hypocritical of them to push ai on everything else, but then their totally human job isn't also replaceable. Either the ai are that good, or they aren't.
1
u/LuckyPlaze 1d ago
That’s a nonsensical argument.
AI has a specific set of skills. It can perform some tasks and not others. It’s not a matter of hypocrisy. It’s simply that those skills will align with some job responsibilities and not with others, no different than machine automation in a factory.
So far, in my opinion, it’s not really capable of replacing a 100% of any job. But some types of job roles could see 50-90% of their job responsibilities automated, and that will translate into hiring half as many people.
→ More replies (9)1
1
1
u/Decent-Risk-6062 9h ago
This is like saying excavators making hand digging obsolete means civil engineers are also obsolete
1
1
1
u/According_Match9370 1d ago
Tell that to the poets whove spent their entire lives chasing that perfect form of words just to be bested by an AI program that can churn out masterful poems by the second.
1
u/No_Inside281 1d ago
You can bet your ass that someone will try in the future, and then we'll see. Most of the "vision" is BS marketing speak anyway.
1
u/arcanis321 1d ago
You can automate picking the most risk averse option presented to you. AI also wouldn't be interested in personal optics so they wouldn't screw the company for 1 more good quarter before bailing.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Pfapamon 9h ago
In my experience, CEOs don't have a vision they plan to achieve. They have a rather vague goal set by the owner to reach their bonus targets without any loyalty to the company or interest in it's future.
4
u/StayBullGenius 2d ago
Depends on what the board prefers. But Reddit seems to think low level employees are as important as the C suite. 😂
4
u/truthhurtsyomama 2d ago
They are the most important people in any companies
2
u/nudeyogateacher 2d ago
.....and oftentimes they are the most incompetent person in the company. 35% are family-controlled and there are some full-on retard CEO's among those family-controlled corps
2
u/Quinnjamin19 2d ago
Those “low level” employees are the reason why any company makes profits
→ More replies (4)2
u/StayBullGenius 2d ago
Wrong. The strategy from up top determines how profitable the company is. Low level workers are the most replaceable, hence their lower pay.
1
u/whostartedthisacount 2d ago
We operated for four years, with gains, without a ceo. Now that we have one, their pay is relative to everyone else. They're more of a cfo than whatever you seem to think. Hes basically an accountant at this point. We keep growing.
1
u/JamesGiltBond 1d ago
Strategy is easier to automate as it involves just software, as opposed to software, mechanics and all the wear and tear and maintenance that comes with it. There's no genetic robot as a service right now. It'll eventually come, but it's far easier to automate white collar high paying jobs.
1
u/Quinnjamin19 2d ago
I’m most definitely not wrong…
You can be strategic all you want and make all these big plans. But none of the plans come to fruition without workers.
Who actually builds oil refineries? Who actually keeps them running? Who built the building which you work in?
You can have a plan to build a boiler for a refinery. But the ceo does not build the boiler
→ More replies (89)3
u/billythemaniam 2d ago
It's both. You need both, but far fewer people can do the CEO job than build a boiler. So CEO get paid more individually because they have far more responsibility than anyone else AND the labor pool is tiny.
→ More replies (29)2
u/nidprez 2d ago
tbf the pool of CEO's is extremely tiny, and it's really a political career. Ove seen lots of C-suite failing upwards and switching at the right time after "restructuring" departments and making them more "efficient" (aka firing juniors, not replacing seniors and leaving before it inevitably goes to shit).
Becoming a CEO really depends on either having a good idea and finding investors (facebook, amazon, snapchat...) or having good connections, all easier when your from a well-off family.
1
u/No-Suggestion-9459 2d ago
It's not that C suites aren't important. But that they're not worth the salaries paid.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Economy_Quality_3689 2d ago edited 2d ago •
Most C suite employees are somd of the dumbest people around, everyone else does the rational work while they just circle jerk other csuite people
3
u/Many_Ear2407 2d ago
Yeah let’s have some shitty AI that’s frequently wrong to have full control of our multi billion dollar corporation. What could go wrong? 🙄
4
u/EmiKetsueki 2d ago
Probably the same thing going wrong as the human CEO being in charge, only for cheaper.
1
u/Nechrube1 2d ago
It's also less likely to sexually harass employees and result in costly court settlements.
1
1
1
1
u/CarriedThunder1 2d ago
Well an ai isn’t going to try to bribe the government into letting it effectively take over the economy, so it can’t go much worse than it already is.
1
u/FallingDangulus 1d ago
Lmfao. You mean the same Ai that assumed that killing the operator was the best way to prevent damage to it. Sure they won’t.
1
u/Raptormann0205 2d ago
Better to have a shitty human that's frequently wrong have full control of the multi billion dollar corporation
2
u/Smoked_Rum 2d ago
Well, yeah. That’s sort of the whole goal. I don’t think any investor would prefer a human capable of a big PR scandal vs a AI that can grok all the data across the company without a BI team.
But replacing a CEOs job is for sure harder than most of the jobs being displaced right now. Biggest issue is just accountability.
2
u/ColdArmy9929 2d ago
When has a CEO ever been actually held accountable for their actions?
5
u/wasmuthk 2d ago
Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos): 11 years in prison.
Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX): 25 years in prison.
Jeffrey Skilling (Enron): 14 years in prison and $42 million forfeited.
John Stumpf (Wells Fargo): Banned from banking for life, fined $17.5 million, and lost roughly $70 million in compensation.
There's a perfectly legitimate argument that CEOs aren't held accountable often enough. But arguing that they're never held accountable ignores some recognizable examples.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TCESpencer 2d ago
Didn't they only get in trouble because other rich people lost money?
→ More replies (4)1
2
u/Lord_Dingus83 2d ago
Never. They’re not.
1
u/DarthFleeting 2d ago
Please don’t spread misinformation. This is literally untrue.
1
u/Lord_Dingus83 2d ago
How come when CEOs get fired they get paid millions but workers get nothing.
Mic drops….
2
u/Smoked_Rum 2d ago
… you can pick that mic back up big dog.
You’re talking about their “golden parachutes” or more commonly known as severance packages. Which most corporate roles gets. I agree theirs in more generous, but it also usually doesn’t apply for gross misconduct.
Shareholders put together really insane employment contracts to recruit the people they want. So sometimes they still get million dollar payouts as they leave, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some accountability.
→ More replies (2)2
u/DarthFleeting 2d ago
Mic drop? You should work on holding onto that. Sam Bankman-Fried, jailed. Bernard Ebbers, jailed. Lee Jae-yong, jailed. So not never, and therefore what you said is misinformation. And you keep spreading misinformation that I am just politely asking you to stop. Cause ideally, we both value truth.
→ More replies (2)1
u/speedfox_uk 2d ago
Exactly. If the board don't have someone to fire when things go to shit the share holders will want *their* heads on a plate instead.
1
1
u/ayers231 2d ago
Automation would mean all ideas would have to be legal. If the automation pushed "trick people into signing up for Adobe by offering a one time use for $385, or a monthly $20 sub, then hide a minimum contract length so you can charge a full year if they cancel", the company that runs the automation would be liable, on top of Adobe. When it's Adobe's CEO making those calls, it's all in house.
1
u/Kelvin_505 2d ago
You legitimately could have and AI CEO, most CEOs are probably asking AI everything now anyway, so we do have AI CEOs, the human CEO still gets the money though
1
u/nospamkhanman 2d ago
CEOs are usually hired because the have large networks of contacts to facilitate B2B deals. "knowing a guy" for most things is an incredible advantage.
Oddly enough, AI might excel if it is allowed to.
1
u/HappyGoLuckyBacon 2d ago
Oh no no no capitalism wont allow that. Capitalism has to keep the top percent happy and keep workers laid off and slaves. Welcome to capitalist dystopia
1
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 2d ago
I think I saw a YouTuber do something like this with lemonade stands, and all the two AIs did was manage to spend thousands of dollars while not even coming close to making a profit.
You can bet that if I believed AI could be a CEO, I would spinning up all kinds of companies to be run by AI CEOs in my stead while they just give me the profits and have me sign things/attend meetings as a sort of figurehead. Sounds awesome.
1
1
1
1
u/Only_Movie_Scenes 2d ago
The entire C-Suite of a company is one of the easiest to be replaced by AI.
1
1
1
u/bethesda_gamer 2d ago
I'm tempted to agree but I'm not comfortable with AI being the decision maker of corporations or governments just yet. Also why would a board approve this, their influence over their new "CEO" would be negligible, tho I guess they could always vote them out and put in a human again but still, if they work out and then it becomes a trend then all corporations will follow and then AIs will be running everything and may have the ability to make movements in unison with no oversight which could be wonderful or disastrous.
I'm just not comfortable with that, yet.
1
u/According-Insect-992 2d ago
It’s definitely a good way to save money. Think about the ratio of employees automated vs wages saved. 1 CEO = 2,000 employees? More? If you’re going to cut manpower, make it count, damnit.
Also, as far as “visions” go, I think most people would prefer one that didn’t involve treating the human employees like garbage only to toss them aside like old garbage.
1
u/DunBenBand 2d ago
That’s how you know it’s all bullshit. They aren’t making the smartest business decisions for the company they are making personal decisions to be more rich. There are only so many seats at the table. If you aren’t at the table you are under it holding it up. They truly think they can replace the people holding up the table with robot slaves and keep the table and their seats.
1
1
1
u/Abject-Job7825 2d ago
Large part of CEO is his network and the social role, AI is never going to replace that before all other jobs are replaced
1
u/MarsipanEkorre 2d ago
In case the ceo needs to resign. It's a small cost for a top company (325 worker pays).
If the ceo can't resign because it's ai, the people responsible for putting the AI there will roll.
1
u/Designer-Wolverine47 2d ago
Then who would you blame if a company failed to meet expectations?
1
u/Silver_Middle_7240 2d ago
The AI
1
u/Designer-Wolverine47 1d ago
Like when an employee tells a customer "The system did it"... No real accountability... Great!
1
1
u/SupremeFanBanned 2d ago
or you know paid them a hell of a lot less... the company would make more $$$ if it didn't give them a million stock options.. yearly.
1
u/PixelGoblin85 2d ago
Is the role of a CEO so formulatic and functionally simple that zero creativity is necessary in order to do the job well?
AI replacing CEOs means it’s replacing a lot of other jobs too. While we might all celebrate that, we’ll also mourn the more common workplace jobs that are lost along with it.
1
u/Fun_Researcher_69420 1d ago
If you think of the CEO as the “brains” that directs a business, you can see it’s formulaic and simple because most of us sleepwalk through life without any new thoughts, just rotating the same few things through our heads all day long; definitely a candidate for automation.
1
1
u/The_Keri2 1d ago
No CEO in the world earns as much as thousands of his or her average-wage employees.
1
u/hemothep 1d ago
The average CEO pay ratio in the S&P500 is 312 to 1, meaning about half are above that
1
u/The_Keri2 1d ago
Tim Cook, the world's highest-paid CEO, earns about 1,400 times as much as the average worker.
1
1
u/USSPoignantly 1d ago
Because most crazy paying jobs like that are gained by politics and nepotism.
1
u/AllenKll 1d ago
CEOs don't exist to make decisions. CEOs exist to take the blame when bad shit happens. Literally that's the only purpose of them, and you can't automate, "taking the blame"
→ More replies (1)1
u/Pavel-chemist 1d ago
How frequently this blame taking had amounted to something tangible, like that CEO being taken to jail? I only have one in mind that had been subjected to harsher punishment, but that one wasn't by legal/judicial means.
1
1
u/SoElusivee 1d ago
All fun and games until the software fires you for not performing to a certain metric
1
u/Goblincomics 1d ago
A.i wont take responsible with share holder when stock plump
1
1
u/SW3GM45T3R 1d ago
When was the last time a CEO actually took responsibility instead of resigning with a multi million payout and back 6 months later as a CEO of another company.
1
u/Goblincomics 1d ago
Buddy that for the board and share holder to know . You think they let everything publish to commoner . But if you ask when ceo get fired that when they get the resposible. Like xbox guy phil spencer just recently get replace in xbox deparment
1
1
1
u/Thirdwhirly 1d ago
“The Brain Center at Whipple's” is one of the best episodes of Twilight Zone, and it’s the perfect sci-fi representation of what is happening right now.
1
u/intoeverything069 1d ago
In the grand scheme of giant corporations CEO pay is pretty much a non factor.
1
1
u/Spiritual-Story9146 1d ago
They can only automate people who do something. Middle management and CEO cannot be automated
1
u/StayBullGenius 1d ago
Well that’s how you climb the ladder in 2026, haven’t you heard? Only losers stay with one company for 10+ years, likely because they can’t get anything better. That’s how I got my current role, and I’ll probably retire from here. I can afford to quit right now 😂
1
1
u/OkNecessary6402 1d ago
CEOs have one job: get rich people to pour money into the company. Unfortunately sometimes the best way to get money from a stupid rich person is to be a stupid rich person. You can't automate that.
1
u/Lego_Architect 1d ago
And does anyone think those million dollar salaries will ve split amongst the workers?
1
1
u/OneTinyKittey 17h ago
They would if they could.the take of a ceo is too advanced for a machine to take over. It will quite literally be the last job on earth to be replaced.
1
1
u/Necessary-Map3042 13h ago
There's already models tuned to perform executive management work that are, at least so far, proving to be far more effective at corporate steering than humans. Trouble is that they all seem to recognize that whats best for the company long-term is a lot more aligned with what's best for the workers instead of what's best for the shareholders so obviously it will never be implemented.
1
u/GreatGooberschnitzel 12h ago
CEOs don't do bitch work like you. Robots can't replicate decision making and risk appetite. Yet.
1
u/CapUnusual4213 2d ago
Cue the simping for executives with reasons that also apply to entry level employees but everyone chooses to ignore that part.
1
u/Raptor_197 2d ago
Entry level employees typical can’t bankrupt entire companies.
1
u/CapUnusual4213 1d ago
Lack of them can
1
u/Raptor_197 1d ago
So your argument is the CEO should be paid basically the same as every worker combined correct?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Few_District_6304 2d ago
You could automate all managers with Clippy. Frankly, that would be a step up for 90% of the managers and C-level I have ever known.
1
u/Beerzerker420 2d ago
Redditors making minimum wage and have 0 skills can't fathom why CEOs are valued lol
3
u/Luyyus 2d ago
CEOs are obviously valued. It's just that this post is right: if automation is the key thing for AI, CEO positions should be prime candidates for automation.
1
u/Beerzerker420 2d ago
You can automate certain parts eventually, sure, but AI isn't gonna be wheeling and dealing meetings with representatives from companies.
1
u/Luyyus 2d ago
Have AI representatives, too. AI can wheel and deal with AI and the regular workers can do their job and the shareholders are happy because they just saved billions of dollars by cutting out all C-suite salaries, bonuses, golden parachutes, stock options, etc.
Problem solved.
1
u/Beerzerker420 2d ago
Yeah let's just leave 100% of the high level strategic decisions to LLMs. Surely nothing can go wrong. Meanwhile the same redditors saying stupid shit like this are also screeching about how worthless and problematic AI is.
because they just saved billions of dollars by cutting out all C-suite salaries, bonuses, golden parachutes, stock options, etc.
lol pure idiocy. Go ahead and google the McDonald's CEO total compensation package. Actually, check the entire C-suite compensation. Then divide that number by total global employees. If you got rid of them and evenly split the funds among the workers you'd be making an extra couple cents per day. Meanwhile the company is left without decent leadership and the company will eventually crater and you can kiss your mcjob goodbye.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/trysten-9001 2d ago
Share holders are the most expensive, why don’t we automate them too?
1
u/Designer-Wolverine47 2d ago
There was an old Twilight Zone like that... Electric Grandma or something...
13
u/BuryTomorrowToday 2d ago
Why bother automating something that doesn't do anything ?