If CEOs legally must do what benefits the shareholders, than cutting millions in employment costs by swapping CEOs with AI is now their legal obligation
Can’t happen. CEOs need to take the fall when the company is caught doing real shady shit, it’s why they get paid so much AND have golden parachutes to boot.
Soon as you replace the CEO with AI, the question rises: when the company is, for example, caught accidentally making people less alive than desired in order to make profits better, who’s at fault? The AI company? They wouldn’t take that blow to their image. Has to be an individual.
I’m not trying to say CEOs are innocent snowflakes. I’m saying they’re expected to be ruthless bloodsuckers and when the time comes, they protect the board by getting fired. Then the board chooses a new ruthless bloodsucker.
People will always want a human to put the blame on, ideally a single one. If it’s an AI model, it’s suddenly going to be Sam Altman’s fault that Johnson and Johnson poisoned people. Doubt he wants that - though the JJ board would certainly love the idea.
Absolutely untrue. The CEO has a fiduciary duty, not a “line always goes up” duty. They are expected to act in the best interests of the company. In other words, they won’t see legal issues unless they pull something in-your-face malicious.
My last CEO announced to the board, two years in a row, that we would purposefully be losing money to build our staff and products. They applauded.
If CEOs legally must do what benefits the shareholders, than cutting millions in employment costs by swapping CEOs with AI is now their legal obligation
(Probably won’t happen, but I can dream!)
Can’t happen. CEOs need to take the fall when the company is caught doing real shady shit, it’s why they get paid so much AND have golden parachutes to boot.
Soon as you replace the CEO with AI, the question rises: when the company is, for example, caught accidentally making people less alive than desired in order to make profits better, who’s at fault? The AI company? They wouldn’t take that blow to their image. Has to be an individual.
I’m not trying to say CEOs are innocent snowflakes. I’m saying they’re expected to be ruthless bloodsuckers and when the time comes, they protect the board by getting fired. Then the board chooses a new ruthless bloodsucker.
When? Only fall they take is from the bullet in their back
They get “fired”. Then everyone washes their hands of them and the exact same bullshit can continue under the next CEO because profit comes first.
And that first CEO becomes a CEO or board member for another company. And round it goes.
Or when the current CEO wants to do some shady shit, they resign and they bring in someone just to take the fall. Then the “good” CEO comes back.
That’s another way to do it, yeah
AI makes the perfect scapegoat though! You can “fire” an AI model and “hire” a new one almost instantly.
“Oh that quarterly loss was due to bad call made by ChatGPT, but don’t worry we switched to Claude now!”
People will always want a human to put the blame on, ideally a single one. If it’s an AI model, it’s suddenly going to be Sam Altman’s fault that Johnson and Johnson poisoned people. Doubt he wants that - though the JJ board would certainly love the idea.
Bingo. You would be a fool to sign up for some of those positions without a golden parachute.
“So you can make me do stupid shit and then fire me for doing that stupid shit? Imma need some padding.”
Absolutely untrue. The CEO has a fiduciary duty, not a “line always goes up” duty. They are expected to act in the best interests of the company. In other words, they won’t see legal issues unless they pull something in-your-face malicious.
My last CEO announced to the board, two years in a row, that we would purposefully be losing money to build our staff and products. They applauded.
TIL
The ”line always goes up " duty often comes from a hostile board, and often after a CEO shake up or a board reelection.