Tech CEOs have this wet dream where they just speak into a microphone, “Create my product” and employees will no longer be needed. So… if it becomes that easy, why will Wall Street need tech CEOs?

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because they think they’re special. They think that AI can reduce the number of programmers, the number of support staff, the number of sales agents, because AI allows fewer people to do more.

    But there’s only one CEO. One COO. One CIO. They cannot conceive of a company that operates without them, so they feel no threat at all. If they are replaced, they take their golden parachute and hop back on the executive carousel for another spin.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because they already don’t need a CEO to operate…

    The entire point of a C- suite is to have a room full of fall guys for the board.

    That’s it.

    • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The entire point of a C- suite is to have a room full of fall guys for the board

      This can’t be stressed enough. Every since the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 which came from the Enron and Worldcom collapses, C-suite exists as the person to go to jail if shit really hits the fan.

      The idea of the law was to hold companies accountable, instead all if has done is force companies to create more layers and places to point fingers, thus muddling everything and making to where no one can be held accountable.

      At the same time, Chief officers now knowing that there’s legal requirements, have just demanded outrageous pay and compensation because of the “massive risk” they are taking with any company.

      I’m glad we have SOX, but boy has that law really missed the mark on what it was enacted to do.

      • Artisian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is my first time hearing the idea that SOX caused C-suite bloat and ballooned CEO salaries. A quick google suggests that CEO pay was already very high ~8 years before this: https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-pay

        But I’m not an expert in the data and haven’t looked closely; is there context I’m missing? Kinda seems like C-suite just started getting paid in stocks, and then we decided the stocks must go up (independently of SOX?).

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      All it takes is a Python script that replies to every email with some stock phrase like “we must work harder!”, “we must trim the fat!”, “we must be more innovative!” or some such bullshit. I could write that in half an hour.

  • rhel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    What CEOs never seem to grasp in that context is that they wouldn’t just replace their workers with AI but also their customers… AI doesn’t earn a wage and therefore can’t spend it on (unnecessary) goods… No customer, no revenue. No revenue, no profits. No profit, no dividends.

    Probably why they’re working so hard on commoditizing basic necessities like food, water and housing into subscription based systems… 🤔

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The Dunning-Kruger effect. CEOs (especially ones who joined the company long after it was successful) really don’t know how to do the job of most of their employees. Their lack of knowledge of those jobs leads them to vastly underestimate how complex they are.

    At the same time, CEOs (hopefully) know how to do their own jobs which leads them to a more accurate assessment of AI’s ability to do the job: a total farce.

    In truth, AIs aren’t likely to replace most jobs in any case because it’s all a house of cards.

    • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m of the same opinion that AI won’t be able to adequately replace many jobs, but only in the long term. In the short term I think it’s going to be a bit of a bloodbath with a lot of companies drinking the kool aid until they realize it’s not working.

      • No1@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The number of companies that wilfully ignored disastrous effects of outsourcing projects doesn’t fill me with hope…

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Potentially more effective overall given how so many CEO decisions seem to result in terrible outcomes because they don’t actually understand their product. Usually because they were hired into the company and industry, and have no actual experience with their product or how the company works.

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I doubt that an LLM would do very well, but other forms of ML (like a model trained to work in business rules and economic outcomes rather than stringing words together) could probably be used. Hell, they probably won’t need to use the planet-destroying mega data canters to do it; some very effective specialized ML models can be run on a Raspberry Pi.

        The biggest problem with AI is they’re convincing people it can think and replace workers by using extremely large language models trained on stolen works provided as cloud services asking for exorbitant subscription fees. It’s a mechanical Turk designed to empty your wallet; to siphon the value produced by workers away from companies into the one centralized service.

        In other words, tech bros figured out how to take something useful and make a grift out of it, because you can get rich by gatekeeping something of value. Why do you think they went so far as to threaten to ban DeepSeek when a free model that can run on a desktop PC from a foreign “adversary” appeared? They all shit their collective pants because the jig was up.