It makes a lot more sense to replace CEOs with AI. They can hold a lot of context at once, can access company data instantly, and probably would cost an order of magnitude less.

▲

dgellow 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Regarding your last point, I don’t think leadership remuneration is something most corporations are concerned with, otherwise there would be some pressure for it to go down, which isn’t the case. The AI won’t go on podcast to sell the company vision, or raise money from VCs

▲

malandin 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thought about it quite a bit. The responsibility is something your need a human to bear. Once we can sue an AI agent, the CEOs will be gone, lol

	▲	meerita 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly. Delegating authority is easy. Delegating legal and moral responsibility is a very different problem.

▲

ashumz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In theory, yes. In practice, AI is not great at influencing momentum which is what the best CEOs are best at.

	▲	lambdaone 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What practice? I'd like to see non-trivial uses of this outside scenarios other than this [0] which even now seems to show slow but steady improvements over time. As for the Machiavellian scheming aspect, this seems to me to be very much like the operations of some real-world human CEOs. [0] https://news.sky.com/story/claude-opus-4-6-this-ai-just-pass...
	▲	meerita 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes. Processing information is one thing. Creating momentum among investors, employees, partners, and customers who often want different things is another.

▲

meerita 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]