[randomstate]

Lately I think more and more about the famous IBM quote - "A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision."

I think this also applies to current AI solutions and I think that's precisely why the best workers will be humans who both use AI and will put their accountability at stake.

[watwut]

Management is routinely unaccountable and extremely good at avoiding accountability. If this is the difference, humans cant do management decisions either.

[otterley]

Whether management can be held accountable is a question of will. The difference is that they can be held accountable if people so choose, whereas a computer never can.

[b112]

Maybe a decade ago, I wanted to have some fun with a corporate structure.

One thing I wanted to do, was setup an AI as CEO and board member of a small company. Then, all pay for contracts I do would flow through that entity.

This was going to be simple algo AI, with pre-scripted decisions including "hire an expert for unknown issues" then "vote yes to expert's solution". The expert always being me, of course, under contract.

I'd take a much lower hourly rate for normal rech work, and instead keep capital in the business. The business would buy an old warehouse, have servers, and a guard.

I'd be hired as the guard too.

You can hire guards with the requirement they sleep on site. In such a case the lodging isn't income, as it is required for the job.

So I could take a very low hourly rate, and maybe options in shares.

And of course the car would be corporate leased, and all that.

This is perfectly legit setup in my tax jurisdiction, except for the AI part. Back then, I had two goals.

The first was a way to amusingly conceal where I live. It bugs me that I have to disclose this. The second was to keep as much of my earnings in a corporation, and the mortgage also gave the corporation an asset with increasing value.

But my name would not be on the registration for the company as a board member. Or CEO.

And in fact my relationship to the company would be under contract as a sole proprietor, so no need to file certain employee laden paperwork.

Upon retirement, I could cash out the company in a variety of ways, after exercising my options.

(The company would also be required to help with a bridge loan for this)

So maybe IBM is wrong?

(Just an amusing edge case)

[yial]

Can’t you pull of something similar using irrevocable trusts ? Overly simplified, but have a trust registered through an agent you trust( ha ha), have them add you as a trustee, they then resign?

[b112]

Not against the idea, but I think they're more constrained where I am. I recall looking into it and instead going down the corporate path.

But I could be wrong.