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.
That would free up a whole shitload of money for the citizens! /s
That will be a whole shitload of money for the shareholders
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.
It’ll take a few years but it progresses exponentially, it will get there.
It progresses logistically; eventually it’ll plateau and there’s no reason to believe that plateau will come after “can do everything a human can.”. See: https://www.promptlayer.com/research-papers/have-llms-hit-their-limit
Sure, but we don’t know where that plateau will come and until we get close to it progress looks approximately exponential.
We do know that it’s possible for AI to reach at least human levels of capability, because we have an existence proof (humans themselves). Whether stuff based off of LLMs will get there without some sort of additional new revolutionary components, we can’t tell yet. We won’t know until we actually hit that plateau.
Current Ai has no shot of being as smart as humans, it’s simply not sophisticated enough.
And that’s not to say that current llms aren’t impressive, they are, but the human brain is just on a whole different level.
And just to think about on a base level, LLM inference can run off a few gpus, roughly order of 100 billion transistors. That’s roughly on par with the number of neurons, but each neuron has an average of 10,000 connections, that are capable of or rewiring themselves to new neurons.
And there are so many distinct types of neurons, with over 10,000 unique proteins.
On top of there over a hundred neurotransmitters, and we’re not even sure we’ve identified them all.
And all of that is still connected to a system that integrates all of our senses, while current AI is pure text, with separate parts bolted onto it for other things.
The human brain is doing a lot of stuff that’s completely unrelated to “being intelligent.” It’s running a big messy body, it’s supporting its own biological activity, it’s running immune system operations for itself, and so forth. You can’t directly compare their complexity like this.
It turns out that some of the thinky things that humans did with their brains that we assumed were hugely complicated could be replicated on a commodity GPU with just a couple of gigabytes of memory. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that everything else we do is as complicated as we thought either.
Yeah a lot of it is messy, but they are not being replicated by commodity gpus.
LLMs have no intelligence. They are just exceedingly well at language, which has a lot of human knowledge in it. Just read claudes system prompt and tell me it’s still smart, when it needs to be told 4 separate times to avoid copyright.
LLMs have no intelligence. They are just exceedingly well at language, which has a lot of human knowledge in it.
Hm… two bucks… and it only transports matter? Hm…
It’s amazing how quickly people dismiss technological capabilities as mundane that would have been miraculous just a few years earlier.
Current Ai has no shot of being as smart as humans, it’s simply not sophisticated enough.
you know what’s also not very sophisticated? the chemistry periodic table. yet all variety of life (of which there is plenty) is based on it.
At its face value, base elements are not enormously complicated. But we can’t even properly model any element other than hydrogen, it’s all approximations because quantum mechanics is so complicated. And then there’s molecules, that are even more hopelessly complicated, and we haven’t even gotten to proteins! By comparison our best transistors look like toys.
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.
You mean dialectical whimsiness
their decisions all seem very formulaic, and they could definitely be made faster if you just typed it into ChatGPT
?
I asked ChatGPT about 2 years ago to write a response from a CEO explaining that while it was their best financial year, they would be eliminating my department along with 500 workers, and no bonuses for the rest. It pumped out a nearly identical response as my CEO.
Subject: Q2 2023 Quarterly Update: Record-breaking Profits, Strategic Realignments, and Compensation Adjustments
Dear esteemed stakeholders,
I am thrilled to present to you the second-quarter update, brimming with noteworthy achievements and strategic developments that have significantly impacted our organization’s performance. Despite operating in a dynamic and highly competitive landscape, we have delivered outstanding financial results that surpass any previous decade’s records. I am excited to share these details and provide insight into the exceptional growth we have experienced in recent months.
Financial Highlights:
In Q2 2023, we witnessed a meteoric rise in our profitability, with net earnings reaching unprecedented heights, outperforming any comparable period over the past ten years. The diligent efforts of our teams, coupled with robust market conditions, synergistic acquisitions, and optimized cost structures, have paved the way for this remarkable achievement.
Strategic Realignment:
Our success can be primarily attributed to our relentless pursuit of strategic realignment initiatives across multiple fronts. By strategically refocusing our core business lines and leveraging our distinctive competencies, we have effectively capitalized on emerging market trends while fortifying our position as an industry leader.
Our investments in cutting-edge technology and digital transformation initiatives have empowered us to unlock new opportunities and drive operational efficiency. The implementation of data-driven analytics has yielded insightful decision-making capabilities, enabling us to optimize resource allocation and enhance overall productivity.
Product Portfolio Optimization:
Our product portfolio underwent a comprehensive review during Q2, resulting in strategic pruning and refocusing efforts. By prioritizing high-growth areas with maximum revenue potential and aligning our offerings with evolving customer needs, we have ensured a sharper competitive edge and amplified market penetration. This proactive approach has allowed us to streamline our operations while effectively positioning ourselves as a provider of innovative solutions.
Employee Recognition and Compensation Adjustments:
Regrettably, amidst these commendable financial achievements, it is imperative that we address a necessary adjustment to our compensation policies. While profits have soared, we have made the difficult decision not to award annual bonuses to our employees this year. This choice was made to safeguard the long-term sustainability and growth of our organization, considering the dynamic market conditions and the need for prudent financial management.
It is important to emphasize that this decision was not taken lightly, and we remain deeply committed to the well-being and development of our employees. Alternative avenues, such as performance-based incentives and recognition programs, will be explored to ensure ongoing motivation and engagement within our workforce. We firmly believe that nurturing a conducive work environment, coupled with career advancement opportunities, will continue to foster a culture of excellence and drive collective success.
Looking Forward:
Moving forward, we will remain steadfast in our commitment to driving sustainable growth, capitalizing on emerging market opportunities, and nurturing a resilient organizational culture. Our strategic initiatives will continue to prioritize innovation, operational excellence, and customer-centricity, ensuring our ability to adapt and thrive in an ever-changing business landscape.
I extend my deepest gratitude to each member of our organization, whose unwavering dedication and relentless pursuit of excellence have contributed to our resounding success. Together, we will navigate the evolving market dynamics and deliver sustainable value to our stakeholders.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
[Your Name] CEO, [Company Name]
Try doing it now and compare it and see what it does differently.
It’s scary how much this reads like the emails I receive from $corporate_management
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.
All of you are missing the point.
CEOs and The Board are the same people. The majority of CEOs are board members at other companies, and vice-versa. It’s a big fucking club and you ain’t in it.
Why would they do this to themselves?
Secondly, we already have AI running companies. You think some CEOs and Board Members aren’t already using this shit bird as a god? Because they are
They would do it because the big investors–not randos with a 401k in an index fund, but big hedge funds–demand that AI leads the company. This could potentially be forced at a stockholder meeting without the board having much say.
I don’t think it will happen en masse for a different reason, though. The real purpose of the CEO isn’t to lead the company, but to take the fall when everything goes wrong. Then they get a golden parachute and the company finds someone else. When AI fails, you can “fire” the model, but are you going to want to replace it with a different model? Most likely, the shareholders will reverse course and put a human back in charge. Then they can fire the human again later.
A few high profile companies might go for it. Then it will go badly and nobody else will try.
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…
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.
The funny part is that I can’t tell whether you’re talking about LLMs or the C-suite.
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.
Y’know, the whole “don’t dehumanize the poor biwwionaiwe’s :(((” works for like, nazis, because they weren’t almost all clinical sociopaths.
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.
I think you’re getting caught up in semantics.
“Following a trend” is something a series of points on a grid can do.
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
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.
Oh sorry I was referring to CEOs
I’d argue they do make strategic decisions, its just that the strategy is always increasing quarterly earnings and their own assets.
yet…
That’s part of why we hate them no?
Hate isn’t generally based on rational decision making.
You’re right. But then look at Musk. if anyone was ripe for replacement with AI, it’s him.
Its inevitable.
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?
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
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.
I accept your proposal to turn off ceos when there leadership results in the death and injury of humans.
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.
Wasn’t it Willy Shakespeare who said “First, kill all the Shareholders” ? That easily manipulated stock market only truly functions for the wealthy, regardless of harm inflicted on both humans and the environment they exist in.
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?
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.
I guess I was being a bit over the top, the CEOs are the capitalists. I guess it’s possible they are doing their job with LLMs now, but just behind the scenes. Like, either they are worth what they are paid, or the system is broken AF and it doesn’t matter.
I just don’t see them being replaced in any meaningful way.
CEOs may not be the capitalists at the top of a particular food chain. The shareholding board is, for instance. They can be both but there are plenty of CEO level folks who could, with a properly convinced board, be replaced all nimbly bimbly and such.
I guess, but they sure shovel plenty of money at say… Musk. So what? Is he worth a trillion? It seems the boards could trim a ton of money if ceos did nothing. Or they do lots and it’s all worth it. Who’s to say.
I just don’t see LLMs as the vehicle to unseat CEOs, or maybe I’m small minded idk.
Sadly don’t think this is going to happen. A good CEO doesn’t make calculated decisions based on facts and judge risk against profit. If he did, he would, at best, be a normal CEO. Who wants that? No, a truly great CEO does exactly what a truly bad CEO does; he takes risks that aren’t proportional to the reward (and gets lucky)!
This is the only way to beat the game, just like with investments or roulette. There are no rich great roulette players going by the odds. Only lucky.
Sure, with CEOs, this is on the aggregate. I’m sure there is a genius here and a Renaissance man there… But on the whole, best advice is “get risky and get lucky”. Try it out. I highly recommend it. No one remembers a loser. And the story continues.
Well you will be happy to hear that AI does make calculated risks but they are not based on reality so they are in fact - risks.
You can’t just type “Please do not hallucinate. Do not make judgement calls based on fake news”
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.
You’re mixing up corporate personhood and the CEO’s own personhood. He isn’t the corporation. Ultimately, he’s just an employee. There’s no good reason for the board of directors to pay him if a machine can do a better job while costing less. I’m not sure why you might think that wouldn’t happen.
No but the corporation is the person, CEO handing it to AI which then becomes a person.
You might want to read more about corporate personhood. It doesn’t mean that the corporation is considered by the law to be a person, or that whoever or whatever performs the duties of the CEO is by definition a person. It means that a corporation, despite not being a person, has certain rights usually associated with people. For example, a person can own property or be sued. A cat cannot own property or be sued. A corporation is like a person rather than a cat in that it can also own property or be sued. There’s debate about exactly which rights should be granted to corporations, but the idea that a corporation has at least some minimal set of rights is centuries old and an essential part of the very definition of what a corporation is.
True but corporate personhood already gives the legal shell. If an AI is actually running the company’s decisions, wouldn’t that be the first time in practice that courts are forced to treat an AI’s choices as the will of a legal person? In effect, wouldn’t that be the first step toward AI being judged as a ‘person’ under law?
It’s what republicans need, yes
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?
I don’t see any other future.
