| This is yet another of those articles that would never be written if an editor just said “take ten minutes and consider the implications.” - Somebody owns the company. If you replace the CEO with “AI” then whoever controls the AI is now the CEO in the minds of the owner(s). - A real CEO would resign if he were constantly undermined and ignored by the people whom he works for. In the case of AI, it’s safe to disrespect it. - Imagine a CEO who is capable of micromanaging everyone and does it just as badly as a human, but 100 times more often. - A CEO must be able to take responsibility for his actions. An AI cannot be responsible, under the law. No one can “work for” an AI. Labor law isn’t set up that way. - It is not immoral to manipulate an AI. It’s called being tech savvy. For instance, I know from my research that I can get an LLM to change its mind quite often by asking “are you sure?” - Since AI has all the biases of people, and will act on those biases foolishly and reliably, an AI CEO will spur a new boom of labor litigation. - No decision in business is primarily “data-driven.” And even if we would like them to be, we never have the data we need. - One of the key purposes of management is to deal with conflicts, disputes, disruptions. How could those be handled by an AI that has no ability to be responsible and will not be respected by anyone? I don’t want my beef with a dev adjudicated in a vending machine. |