How awful! *snickers*

[cm0002@lemmy.world]

This post did not contain any content.

[miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

He'll still get full pay, stock options, golden parachutes...

...without those bothersome quarterly "meetings"....

[buglefingers@lemmy.world]

If CEOs legally must do what benefits the shareholders, than cutting millions in employment costs by swapping CEOs with AI is now their legal obligation

(Probably won't happen, but I can dream!)

[paperemail@links.rocks]

[boonhet@lemm.ee]

Can't happen. CEOs need to take the fall when the company is caught doing real shady shit, it's why they get paid so much AND have golden parachutes to boot.

Soon as you replace the CEO with AI, the question rises: when the company is, for example, caught accidentally making people less alive than desired in order to make profits better, who's at fault? The AI company? They wouldn't take that blow to their image. Has to be an individual.

[thepantser@lemmy.world]

CEOs need to take the fall when the company is caught doing real shady shit

When? Only fall they take is from the bullet in their back

[jlh@lemmy.jlh.name]

Sebastian Siemiatkowski, worth $3B.

https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Siemiatkowski

This article is him bragging btw, he loves to talk about how he replaced 700 employees with AI.

He's also personally involved in union busting in Sweden.

https://www.arbetsvarlden.se/all-on-the-unionen-board-gone-from-klarna-cleared/

https://arbetet.se/2023/11/21/hemlig-inspelning-klarnas-vd-sebastian-siemiatkowski-jamfor-facken-med-grisar/

He also wrote on Musk's social media today that he wants to tear up money laundering regulations on his loan shark company:

https://www.realtid.se/bank-fintech/klarna-om-rekordboterna-meningslost-att-overklaga/

I really don't fucking feel bad for him.

[breve@pawb.social]

AI makes the perfect scapegoat though! You can "fire" an AI model and "hire" a new one almost instantly.

"Oh that quarterly loss was due to bad call made by ChatGPT, but don't worry we switched to Claude now!"

[boonhet@lemm.ee]

They get "fired". Then everyone washes their hands of them and the exact same bullshit can continue under the next CEO because profit comes first.

[shalafi@lemmy.world]

Bingo. You would be a fool to sign up for some of those positions without a golden parachute.

"So you can make me do stupid shit and then fire me for doing that stupid shit? Imma need some padding."

[shalafi@lemmy.world]

Absolutely untrue. The CEO has a fiduciary duty, not a "line always goes up" duty. They are expected to act in the best interests of the company. In other words, they won't see legal issues unless they pull something in-your-face malicious.

My last CEO announced to the board, two years in a row, that we would purposefully be losing money to build our staff and products. They applauded.

[mumblerfish@lemmy.world]

And that first CEO becomes a CEO or board member for another company. And round it goes.

[azzu@lemm.ee]

There's so much narrative around current society how AI is terrible for taking jobs away.

That's the entire point! That's good! We're supposed to not need to do anything anymore with advancing technology.

The problem isn't that technology takes jobs away, the problem is that the savings are converted into more profit for the ultra rich, while it should be converted into having to work less for everyone.

[cm0002@lemmy.world]

Yup, in a right and just world, the government(s) would be rolling out UBI right now as people lose jobs to automation and have skill retraining programs at the ready

[cosmicturtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

The ”line always goes up " duty often comes from a hostile board, and often after a CEO shake up or a board reelection.

[anticorp@lemmy.world]

"Squeeze more profits! Make our product worse! Lay these people off! Give me $100m bonus!"

I'm a CEO!

[boonhet@lemm.ee]

People will always want a human to put the blame on, ideally a single one. If it's an AI model, it's suddenly going to be Sam Altman's fault that Johnson and Johnson poisoned people. Doubt he wants that - though the JJ board would certainly love the idea.

[anticorp@lemmy.world]

while it should be converted into having to work less for everyone.

Who says it should do that? When have advancements ever done that? The wealthy created the tool, and they say it should be used for unimaginable power and profits.

[circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org]

Exactly this. There was a meme (or maybe many) rolling around long ago about how the intention was not to have humans do all the jobs and AI do all the art: quite the opposite.

This is related to the growth in productivity we have seen across industries for the last 50 years. It is through the roof, but wages are lower per unit production and aren't showing any signs of ending their stagnation.

The problem there is the same with all this new tech enhancing lives and production, while people still have to work as much as before, if not more: the gains, monetary or otherwise, are being pocketed by someone else.

It's like wage theft, but "better": it's progress theft.

[brbposting@sh.itjust.works]