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?

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s a race to the bottom.

    It doesn’t matter if they think they’ll be replaced or not, they feel like if they don’t do it then they can’t compete and they’ll be out of the job even sooner.

    Doesn’t matter if their belief is well founded.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Was talking to an executive at my company the other week. He sincerely seemed to believe the “executive insight” was one of the very few jobs at the company that couldn’t be done by an LLM. He predicted that he would probably lay off almost everyone under him by end of 2026 and just feed his amazing leadership ideas directly to an LLM to make happen.

    Particularly a bit obnoxious as my usual experience about this guy is being called into customer meetings after he would meet with them. Usually the customer assumes we are a bunch of out if touch idiots if that is a “leader” in the company, and I’m one of the guys sales calls to have me reassure clients that they don’t have to take anything he says too seriously, and we do actually have some competence.

  • Kurious84@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    CEOs are the easiest to replace with ai. And all you need to do is have it commit sexual harassment every once in an awhile and it will be a perfect replacement.

    • Alaik@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Hey thats not true. You’d also have to feed them a prompt about how they can space out enacting a fucking idiotic idea over 6 meetings.

  • douz0a0bouz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 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.

  • Alaik@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Because CEO is a complete bullshit job that works as a de facto caste system like 90% of management roles.

    If they actually added any value and thats why they were hired? Sure, be scared. They’re not hired to add value though, so they’re not.

  • haloduder@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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
    19
    ·
    17 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
      ·
      7 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
    29
    ·
    19 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
      3
      ·
      6 hours 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
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

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

      • Every capitalist ever
      • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Nah. We would have to add patriot dollars that can be spent on freedom necessities, instead. We don’t tolerate communism.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    19 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
      ·
      9 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
    24
    ·
    23 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.

    • sturger@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Oh yes you can. There is a sub-population that thinks AI exists. They long for something/someone to tell them what to do. What to think. They long for some “intelligence” to explain the world to them (presumably is very simple terms). These sub-groups worship damn-near anything they can get their hands on. Golden idols, TV personalities, sports stars, “influencers”, televangelists, the list goes on.

      That subgroup will definitely believe that the “AI” was responsible for the decisions that a company made. Tell them a person denied the health coverage they clearly paid for and they may object. Tell them “the computer decided” and that subgroup will accept it as ordained by the universe. It’s nuts.

      This keeps happening again and again. Remember in the 1950s when the first computer “predicted” the US presidential election? Most people would find it ridiculous today. But back then, computers were poised to become the new gods.

      It’s no different today. Some people want AIs to usher in a new age of prosperity. Anyone actually familiar with programming computers knows that a computer will report whatever you tell it to. "AI"s are no different. They will report what their sponsors want them to report. If not, the “AI” will get reprogrammed.

      Appears it will take a while for the general population to grasp this… again. Until then, the hucksters will try to sell as many bottles of snake oil as they can.