this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
146 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34592 readers
835 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch? A board isn’t paying a CEO $20 million a year for tradition, they’re paying for results. If an AI can do the job cheaper and get better returns, investors will force it.

And since corporations are already treated as “people” under the law, replacing a human CEO with an AI isn’t just swapping a worker for a machine, it’s one “person” handing control to another.

That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselves, not because they want to, but because the system leaves them no choice. And AI would be considered a "person" under the law.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 32 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Several years ago I read an article that went in to great detail on how LLMs are perfectly poised to replace C-levels in corporations. I went on to talk about how they by nature of design essentially do the that exact thing off the bat, take large amounts of data and make strategic decisions based on that data.

I wish I could find it to back this up, but regardless ever since then, I've been waiting for this watershed moment to hit across the board...

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago (6 children)

They... don't make strategic decisions... That's part of why we hate them no? And we lambast AI proponents because they pretend they do.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 34 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The funny part is that I can't tell whether you're talking about LLMs or the C-suite.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Buddam tsssss! I too enjoy making fun of big business CEOs as mindless trend-followers. But even "following a trend" is a strategy attributable to a mind with reasoning ability that makes a choice. Now the quality of that reasoning or the effectiveness of that choice is another matter.

As tempting as it is, dehumanizing people we find horrible also risks blinding us to our own capacity for such horror as humans.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're getting caught up in semantics.

"Following a trend" is something a series of points on a grid can do.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Y’know, the whole “don’t dehumanize the poor biwwionaiwe’s :(((” works for like, nazis, because they weren’t almost all clinical sociopaths.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They do indeed make strategic decisions, just only in favor of the short term profits of shareholders. It’s “strategy” that a 6 yr old could execute, but strategy nonetheless

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

This is closer to what I mean by strategy and decisions: https://matthewdwhite.medium.com/i-think-therefore-i-am-no-llms-cannot-reason-a89e9b00754f

LLMs can be helpful for informing strategy, and simulating strings of words that may can be perceived as a strategic choice, but it doesn't have it's own goal-oriented vision.

[–] OboTheHobo@ttrpg.network 3 points 10 hours ago

I'd argue they do make strategic decisions, its just that the strategy is always increasing quarterly earnings and their own assets.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago

You're right. But then look at Musk. if anyone was ripe for replacement with AI, it's him.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -1 points 11 hours ago

That's part of why we hate them no?

Hate isn't generally based on rational decision making.

[–] Yezzey@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago

Its inevitable.