> C-suite is as likely to be automated as engineers.

Nah. C-suite has (a) money and (b) legal and fiscal obligation. You literally need a human being certain legal operations, like incorporation, salary, and lawsuits.

▲

ocd an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I think a lot of people thought that every step of the way with the progress of AI or automation in general. Unless that C-suite is all shareholders with majority or near majority control of a company, I would think the passive shareholders (in a public or private company) would want the savings in cutting all of those high salaries to zero for a likely superior outcome with AI.

I wouldn't count on lawyers being deemed necessary by the law for as many actions as they have been so far.

	▲	hackyhacky 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> would want the savings in cutting all of those high salaries to zero for a likely superior outcome with AI. Maybe. Or maybe the C-suite salary will be cut to $50K/yr. That would make them marginally more expensive than AI, but for that price the shareholders get an extra layer of insulation should things go awry (and they won't be held personally responsible for corporate malfeasance). > I wouldn't count on lawyers being deemed necessary by the law for as many actions as they have been so far. Maybe, but that's pretty far down the road and would require restructuring the whole jurisprudence system.

▲

code-blooded an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You need *a* human. And that human will be delegated to clicking approve on AI decisions.

▲

jayd16 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Who is C-suite going to blame for fuck ups and failures if the company is just a suit and a laptop?