LogFAQs > #974901211

adjl posted...

Probably, but AI CEOs would have no need for money, so right out of the gate they have less incentive to maximize the profit margin like that.

Except the role of a CEO is to maximize profit, because that's their obligation to shareholders. So an AI CEO almost certainly would be utterly ruthless in squeezing every last drop of efficiency out of its employees, to the point of happily replacing them all if it earned a few extra pennies.

An AI CEO wouldn't be voting itself pay raises or diverting funds into golden parachutes, but it would still be using all the same methods for generating overall company profit. Because that would literally be its purpose.



adjl posted...

Code them with the core goal of creating jobs (that thing billionaires are always bragging about doing) that pay a livable wage

But that's not the job of a CEO. If you coded your hypothetical AI with that objective, it would certainly strive to achieve that as an objective - but the same could be said of human CEOs.

You're essentially adding extra stipulations to the role, then holding it against human CEOs for failing to live up to a standard that doesn't actually exist.

Ultimately, the problem isn't in the ability of a human or an AI to do the job, it's fundamentally disagreeing on what the job should be in the first place. And no amount of AI is ever going to solve that problem.

A lot of the problems people see in modern corporate culture go back to the fact that stock investment and shareholding mandates a degree of growth beyond mere profitability. It's no longer enough for a business to be successful (ie, what most people think the purpose of a business is), corporations must strive to have positive growth at all times forever. Which lends itself to both anti-employee and anti-consumer policies, because literally nothing matters other than the bottom line.

The role of the CEO is to essentially be the spearpoint of that mindset.