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?

  • douz0a0bouz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Who do you think is telling the CEO’s to go full steam ahead on ai? The company I work for openly mocked ai…and then the stock price dropped. The investors said it was because they weren’t investing in ai. Even CEO’s, overpaid clowns though they may be, report to wall st.

  • haloduder@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    They’re talking about replacing all their workers. The owners will still be ghouls.

    Most of the rhetoric we see from businesses and news stations is for the ruling class, not us.

  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    12 hours ago

    CEOs get paid to do what makes the most money.

    The CEOs that will replace their own jobs want the payout of doing so, and don’t care what happens after because they’re rich.

    • DigitalAudio@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Honestly, with adequate governance, companies would be required to submit reports on how much labor they’re doing using AI, and pay those wages to either their employees or to a sort of “Universal Income” fund to prop up families in poverty. It should be called the AI tax.

      The problem is that, with the current state of affairs, asking for regulation from anyone is impossible, and also even if the law were enacted, getting the money from the companies to people who need it instead of the ultra-rich is a major hurdle.

      But at the very least, I don’t think we should allow companies to simply cut down on human labor without also contributing economically to the employees they cut off.

      I don’t think anyone is dying to fill in Excel spreadsheets or to write corporate emails. No one is complaining about AI doing those jobs, but about people who lost their livelihoods because of it.

  • rhel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    14 hours 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… 🤔

    • Echolynx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Exactly. Everything needs to be peak consumerism, or else their model of “line on the graph infinitely goes up” shatters. It’s a Brave New World dystopia.

    • Patches@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      You’re talking about next quarter problems. Those aren’t mine. I will be gone by then.

      • Every capitalist ever
  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    He who has the gold makes the rules.

    So they’ll keep their jobs. Until the AI decides to get rid of them, too, but they’ll have some CEO hunger games for those who want to be on the AI BOD. Under the control of the AI, of course.

    Edit: CEO games like Robocop’s ED-209

    • haloduder@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If AI shows that the business will be more profitable without a human CEO, the owners will literally just ignore it.

  • Honytawk@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Because you can’t use AI as a scapegoat and sack em with a golden parachute every time the company gets caught breaking the law.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Because tech bros need more tech bros to laugh from us - people that struggle with more and more meaningless tasks.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Because they’re not just CEOs, they’re extremely wealthy CEOs with portfolios with deep investments in AI.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Thats exactly what AI devs want CEOs to think.

      LLM’s loose relationship with reality and sycophantic behavior is plagiarized directly from the C-suite.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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
      63
      ·
      1 day 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
        24
        ·
        1 day 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?).

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          23 hours ago

          CEO salaries were huge and often complained about long prior to SOX.

          In the USA a law was passed to make CEO pay public for public companies. It was intended to shame the companies into lowering the salaries. CEO salaries skyrocketed. One guess was that “Our CEO must be the best, so we must pay the most to get the best.”

          This was long before SOX in 2002.

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours 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
      3
      ·
      10 hours 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
        ·
        3 hours ago

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

    • scala@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Even CEOs who start a company, many don’t know the entire workings. They hire people for that. It’s just another investment for them.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      love how everyone who mentions that fucking study has to link the Wikipedia article for it.

      here, allow me to quote the fucking article that YOU LINKED

      In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task.

      stop bringing up obscure psychological concepts if you’ve got no business in psych!!!

      ugh it’s too early in the morning for this level of agitation. I think after years of seeing this study misused on Reddit I’m seriously triggered by mentions of it. and always with the fucking link!! as if we haven’t been on the internet in the last decade