[autobodie]

The most fundamental duty of a CEO is to accept responsibility away from the board members, hence the large bonuses when they are let go. By definition, AI cannot do this. End of conversation.

Same goes for managers in most cases. Firing people because an AI said to simply won't hold ip in court, at least for now.

[palata]

> accept responsibility

When was the last time a CEO went to jail because of illegal activities committed by the company? There is no responsibility.

If the "responsibility" is "you become rich, and if you get fired we give you a huge bonus on top", then I'm pretty sure anyone would be happy to take it.

Being a CEO is like being a politician. You need to convince others that they need you even if they don't, or you're incompetent, or you serve other interests. It's not what it takes to "lead a company", it's what it takes to "get the highly-paid job".

[soco]

"some of you might die, but it's a risk I'm willing to take" - CEO handbook quote (only slightly paraphrased). This is all the risk there is for a CEO, change my mind.

[sotix]

In the US, this happens hundreds or thousands of times per year. The last major CEO was probably more recent, but you have high profile CEOs in Sam Bankman-Freid, Elizabeth Holmes, and Ken Lay. In fact, after Enron, CEOs and CFOs took on significantly more responsibility and risk by being personally liable for the financial statements. CEOs are arrested all of the time, so I’m not sure I understand your point.

[palata]

If some employee of the company does something illegal, the CEO doesn't go to jail. The CEO is only responsible if one can prove that the CEO did something illegal. And that's the very least we can expect: CEOs are humans who should not be above the laws.

But you completely forget the whole spectrum of legal (including "shady") things: an incompetent CEO doesn't risk anything. They can sink a company, get fired and leave with a bonus bigger than most of the good employees will never earn in their lifetime. And then they will get hired as CEO of another company, because nobody seems to care. This is not responsibility.

[autobodie]

When a company is disgraced, the owners don't get replaced; the CEO does. The "responsibility" is primarily a matter of public relations.

Whether or not the CEO does (or could do) the job 100% perfectly is irrelevant. I said what their purpose is and I'm correct.

[mvdtnz]

That's only a "risk" if the organisation is doing illegal things which are driven by leadership. CEOs are not arrested for law breaking they had nothing to do with.