[lapcat]

> If I was going to reduce labor costs by +1M/year, I would rather eliminate 1 CEO then 10 radiologists.

This is a false dichotomy. Why not both?

I think it's a bit strange to hope or assume that an AI CEO would somehow preserve human jobs.

[stvltvs]

Missing the point. If CEOs realize that they're more replaceable by AI than nurses and medical assistants, for example, then maybe they'll take a more nuanced view of the technology.

[lapcat]

No, you're missing the point, because the views of the people to be laid off are irrelevant. Again, the stockholders own the company, not the CEO. If CEOs start chaging their tune on AI as soon as their own jobs are at stake, that would just demonstrate to the stockholders that human CEOs are untrustworthy and need to be replaced.

Before AI came along, CEOs were already arbitrarily laying off workers, to please the stockholders. The stockholders like these cost-cutting measures, and whether the measures make sense is secondary to the CEOs doing what their bosses want. If the stockholders believe that they can cut the CEOs too, they surely will.