Honestly all these companies trying to use AI to replace their workers is pretty funny when you consider that their job is probably the easiest to replace. In fact, AI is a bit overkill. Really all you’d need is a semi reliable algorithm to do the shit they do. I’m not surprised The Onion sees this too.
CEO would probably have to sign off on replacing the CEO. Or the shareholders could vote them out but that’s just as unlikely at any big company…CEOs have a lot of money and shareholders like rich people
Board of directors would replace the ceo. AI doesn’t have a risk of sexual harassment lawsuits or the need of a golden parachute. That sort of risk assessment equals real dollars for a board. There are already a few companies that have AI CEOs. This will most likely become common
I mean there’s also just the sheer financial savings of not having to pay an exorbitant CEO salary and package as well. That’s massive savings, and the company gets an office back to give to someone who needs it. There’s seriously no downsides for boards of directors to keep replacing CEOs with algorithms.
That may work for long established companies that want to just maintain their status quo, but that wouldn’t work at all for startups or companies looking to grow (real growth, not just profit growth). AI is terrible at the kind of abstract and strategic thinking required at the top level when companies are in that phase.
I understand completely. My main concern however is not startup companies. I’m all for supporting smaller companies. It’s more like huge corporations where the CEO takes the majority of the money and probably spends more time on vacation than actually doing anything. Even though I’m sure they do more than I am letting on, I don’t think it justifies millions or even billions of dollars in pay and bonuses. If they started the company that’s one thing. However most CEO’s of large corporations are so far removed from the initial founding of the company they basically have less to do with what the company does than the average employee. The amount of money these companies could make if they actually put that money back into it is potentially higher than current profits. It’s really a win-win situation for everyone except for the CEO instead of just a win for the CEO and nobody else.
The math for those large cooperations is a bit more complex than that. CEO compensation is often mostly stock options, which has a value for tax purposes, but is not a value that can be easily reinvested into the company. The actual cash salary portion of the compensation package is usually peanuts compared to company revenue.
They’re basically trading the CEO partial ownership of the company in exchange for running it, and I’m not sure how you would go about forcing any kind of change on that, without unintentionally breaking things for smaller companies and startups.
Are these the same people giving themselves extra bonuses and compensations?
I feel like ceos only provide value by networking and convincing other csuite and investor types to put faith, and money, into the company.
while true; do sleep 86400; done
