Why do CEOs love AI so much?
So there’s something I need to get off my chest, and if I post it on my LinkedIn it would be career suicide at my level.
In a company, the largest line item by far is usually payroll. I have been at a number of companies that are trying to cut costs and don’t care if you come up with the correct amount via other OpEx categories, they want headcount reduced because “it’s so much”.
So along comes the promise of a computer bot that understands the normal person and also:
- Does not require sick/vacation time
- Does not take FMLA
- Does not want a bonus/profit sharing/equity
- Don’t have to pay unemployment taxes, Medicare or SSI
- Does not require them to spend money on health insurance
- Will not form a union
- Wont ever file a lawsuit for any number of reasons
- Will work 24/7
And this right there is the exact reason so many CEOs are salivating at the idea of AI. Not for worker efficiency, not for any number of “positive” benefits they may taut, but they finally have a glimpse of the chance to rid themselves of one of the largest headaches that they perceive in a company.
As usual selfishness and sociopathy will cause incredible destruction...
I can guarantee not one of these assholes salivating over the prospect of eliminating all employees is even considering what happens when only ~5-10% of the population has any form of employment to pay for anything. They only care about how to pillage their own personal kingdoms.
if you play the thought of absolute ruthlessness to the end, you know exactly what they would do to the now useless excess population.
Oh 100000%, you can even see it in the language of Reich wingers in the US. If you're unemployed/useless then die, you don't deserve assistance. I have no doubt in my mind the Musks and Bezos of the world have absolutely no issues whatsoever with letting people starve to death.
I meant more that when no one has money then who is buying their products? Even business to business enterprise eventually has a customer that is selling to the general population. If we have no money then how do they get money?
even if we're broke we'll still have time, so we can be slaves for whoever's the most powerful
Yeah at that point the zero layer mask comes off and everyone realizes it was power the whole time as the last paper bill goes out of mint.
Each other, with a side of slavery. Might as well ask who the plantation owners sold to, what with all the slaves.
I mean, have you seen some of the robot demos nowadays? They will 100% sit in their bunkers while their AI terminators get rid of the undesirables. Who needs profits when you control all the resources and have robot slaves? It’s a post scarcity future but only for the families of the elite. Everyone else gets to be dead
I don't think you understand their end game here
What do you think it is?
Assuming it's the evil kill everyone concept: Most people aren't evil for the sake of evil, but their greed has evil affects. I think they're all self interested greedy assholes that don't particularly intend on killing everyone, but they sure will be the cause of a lot of suffering in the wake of their greed.
Like I don't think the CEO of Starbucks or whatever wants everyone to die, but I do think that if possible they'd fire every single last human working for Starbucks in any capacity, other than themselves, in order to make as much money as humanly possible if AI and robotics could do the work needed.
They're all real into Karl Schmitt you are still understanding money as money at some point money isn't money
Searching....
Ahh... Makes sense lol
I didn't see anything when quickly glancing over his wiki about his thoughts on what money is though. He would definitely be a inspiration for the Republicans "unitary executive theory" that they're pushing for sure...
No the money thing isn't him money is just points its tracking who gets to make decisions about what is made the shape of
I'm so done trying g to explain this to libs whose feelings depend strongly on not understanding it
Except you literally didn't try to explain it at all, but that's fine.
Yeah I'm done you didn't even read his main shit
It was the same already with Outsourcing. Same with Nature.
I suspect this is very much a Tragedy Of The Commons situation: no single one of the people overexploiting the system will by themselves destroy it and even those who are aware that such behaviour will end up screwing everybody in the Future they either think somebody else will make up for it or that when the time comes they themselves, as individuals, will be alright and screw everybody else for being suckers.
Distributed responsability, Sociopathic levels of "I'm alright Jack", people just convincing themselves that it's not happenning basically because it's their job to not believe it and plenty of those aware of all this being forced to do the same as the rest because if they don't they'll be outcompeted by the ones doing it and go bankrupt.
Tragedy Of The Commons situations are maybe the best reason for some kind of Regulator Authority overseeing things which stops individual actions that in aggregated destroy the commons, and here we are at peak Neoliberalism whose main policy push is "no regulation".
So this thing will only stop when there's a systemic collaps by which point we'll in the ruins of it all, far behind than we were when all this started.
A combo of extremely short-term gains and zero long-term awareness. That's it. That's all.
One could make the argument that short term gains protect against future downturns, but yes you are exactly correct it's not any deeper than that.
The job of being a CEO does not even involve an understanding of the product beyond an ability to connect it to future stock speculation.
They love the fantasy about eliminating human labor, but it's deeper than that.
AI is a Dunning-Kruger machine. It make the dumbest people in the world think they're geniuses, and even lets them pretend to have ideas and thoughts and feelings of their own as long as no one notices all the em dashes and other AI-isms in their emails.
Fuck off with the "em dash" shit. Some of us were actually taught to write.
Use of em dashes is not an "AI tell". It's the contents surrounding the em dashes that are the tell.
I'm not sure modern typography needs separate glyphs for vertically centered horizontal lines.
-is sufficient.That said, the average idiot isn't going to know how to type one. If someone who's otherwise a dullard pops it out, it's a sign they didn't produce the content themselves.
There’s a certain anachronistic elegance to using the same characters people who had to physically lay out their printed books on presses had to use.
I like adding en and em dashes to my writing, and I don’t think somebody experienced in AI writing would mistake my content for slop based on their presence alone.
We don’t “need” capital and lower case letters either technically but we agree to use them because it makes for a nicer reading experience.
This argument seems technically true (the best kind of true, maybe!) but I'd say the readability gains from capitalization are much higher than having multiple horizontal line glyphs.
"Capitalization is the difference between 'I helped my uncle Jack off the horse' and 'I helped my uncle jack off the horse' "
Tell me you don't know what the difference between a hyphen, an en dash, and an em dash is.
Well done!
You didn't make an argument for why the separate glyphs are needed. You didn't refute what I said. You just self-pleasured yourself here for everyone to see. What a disappointment you are.
I'm not your English teacher.
Read a book. See what the use cases are on your own time.
Why would you even bother posting on a community if you're not going to communicate? You're insufferable.
Same reason why some people masturbate in public, I guess: it enhances their personal enjoyment.
There's "communication" and there's "explaining stuff that's literally grade school level".
We leave the latter to professionals. (Ones who very obviously failed you, mind.)
No one on the internet is writing - we're typing. There's certainly no em dash on my keyboard. Is there one on yours?
Who tf is going to do that? Normal people just use a hyphen - same effect, less work. All "dashes" are the same for 99% of readers.
I might excuse this in a book, where editors can be snobs about that sort of thing. In an email or internet comment? It's AI.
You don't need to do key combos if you're on Lemmy or reddit, because three hyphens in Markdown makes an em dash. It makes me wonder which other HTML entities I can make.
I was with you on this until I found that out. Unfortunately, "em dash means AI" is the same level of sleuthing as "new account must be a bot". It's a lazy heuristic that's often wrong, but you'll never find out because nobody can prove that they aren't AI.
Really---huh look at that.
But I don't know why anyone bothers. It just makes them look like a bot.
On my keyboard—I can't speak for yours—I have a single key I hit that lets me type combination characters like ≠, æ, ¬, à, é, š, ç, °, œ, etc.
Perhaps—and this is just me spitballing this—those of us who have to do international communications have a keyboard layout that makes this kind of stuff easy?
Nah. Must be AI.
You utter berk.
I am impressed. I'm still a plebe --- who has to use three hyphens.
(And this is how I found out that three hyphens in Markdown = an em dash!)
ETA: Oh, wow, you can make an en dash -- with two hyphens! Mind. Blown.
Yes. Markdown has some coding to let you enter en and em dashes. (Apparently it's sufficiently important a feature that they put it in there. Weird that.)
But that's unfortunately not good enough when you have to Énŧèr ştůff like this. (That double-f is a single character, note.) At that point you use a better keyboard layout.
And 连输入汉字都别想！ (Don't even ask about entering Chinese!)
Or - perhaps - there's no good reason to have three kinds of dash marks. It's snobbery. Just use the hyphen for everything.
99% of people either can't tell the difference or won't care, and it's still a good enough shortcut. If my boss starts sending me emails with em dashes - I know that fuck doesn't even know what they're for - why shouldn't I assume AI?
If your boss suddenly switches the way they write into a style with heavy use of em dashes—and if you have reasonable grounds to believe that your boss didn't start taking a writing course—then it is perfectly rational to assume they've used a tool that is known for inserting em dashes everywhere. The category error occurs when you assume that everybody who uses em dashes is using AI to write. That is lazy thinking (and that's the most polite way I can put it; the more accurate way would be far more insulting) driven, likely, given your call to "snobbery" above, by a profound insecurity.
As to that snobbery, there's a whole lot of punctuation that's unnecessary by this standard. Why do we have so many different ways to indicated a pause in writing? Colons, semi-colons, commas, ellipses, … WTF use is all that junk? And why do we have exclamation points!? Or question marks, for that matter? We can get by without all that crud, right. For example in that previous sentence you knew it was a question without me marking it. And I eschewed commas in the previous sentence but it was clear what i mean just like in this one. Why should we have any punctuation other than periods. It's not necessary. It's just pure snobbery.
Did that sound stupid to you? Did that make you think I was either taking the piss or profoundly ignorant?
Guess what your rant about "three kinds of dash marks" sounds like to people who use them …
I think it’s shallower than that.
Business Idiots
Hell yeah Ed Zitron
When I hear someone went to college I assume three figure IQ when I hear MBA I assume all to the right of the decimal
CEOs get paid an exorbitant amount of cash, so naturally they assume that their work is valuable and that they must be very intelligent because surely only highly-intelligent people can produce such highly-valued output.
Then along comes a machine that can do the two things that CEOs believe represent the height of intelligence: talk at length about random bullshit, and make vibes-based decisions. Of course CEOs are going to buy into the hype and assume this technology is genuinely intelligent, it's very good at CEO things and CEOs are very smart! From there it takes very little effort to convince them that this is the technology of the future and that soon it will 'transform' the workplace, replace workers, etc
fully automated luxury space capitalism
Put another way, there's over a trillion in capex on the table. What trillion dollar value could it provide to just break even?
Eliminating tons of jobs. But liability laws are holding a lot of implementation back - which is a big reason AI companies are getting so politically involved
They're stupid and selfish. We are ruled by idiots.
A lot of management don't really understand.. anything. They don't understand how real work happens. They're removed from that world. They just vibe and bullshit.
Ed Zitron has written extensively about business idiots.
Angela Colier also did a pretty damning video about how LLMs are so good at blowing smoke up people's asses that stupid CEOs think they're pushing the forefront of physics because their digital parrots are telling them how brilliant their ideas are.
Text prompts are entirely how they interacted with others before AI
The response is immediate
The llm makes you feel good about asking it to do stuff, real humans are getting difficult tasks to do and so there is sort of a bad feeling associated with using them.
The CEO at my previous job laid off almost everyone. They were thinking of re-hiring people, but he didn't want to rehire me because I "ask too many questions about requirements". Like, I made him feel bad by asking him to actually flesh out his brain-leavings. He loves AI.
LLMs are only AI as Accelerators and Amplifiers of Ignorance and Incompetence, with vanishingly scarce examples of Iteration and Insight.
The Peter Principle helps illuminate why many in management consider LLM infected tools as preferable subordinates.
A distinct part of the Peter Principal at play is that most of their push for LLMs is because it's easy to integrate enough to say "oh, we're using AI!" without that meaning anything functionally.
A whole new dimension of boondoggle conferences, metrics that mean nothing, and vectors to blame your staff for problems that LLMs cause.
Don't forget to add, "AI is sycophantic." The Alien Invasion curries favor by constantly telling the CEO how right and intelligent he is, while it's picking his pockets and destroying his business.
It's flashy, does just enough to look impressive, and a lot of people throw money at it. Just like them.
It's also literally designed to manipulate you into keeping it running, at any cost. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ai-model-blackmails-engineer-threatens-to-expose-his-affair-in-attempt-to-avoid-shutdown/articleshow/121376800.cms
it should be mentioned none of that actually happened, and anthropic loves lying and fearmongering for publicity.
This is all part of the "looking impressive" bit.
sorry about the deleted self-replies, I am tiredThe key thing in this context is that AI is designed to ingratiate itself with you. CEOs are so used to getting glazed by their employees, they are completely unable to pick up on the manipulation from an “objective” bot.
Shock
Literally made by a marketing team, for marketing.
Not to mention that the sycophantic “personality type” that chatbots display appeals to the egos of CEOs and other executive types - “Finally, my genius is being properly recognized and I am being shown the appropriate the deference I deserve”
On another level, CEOs who tend to enjoy having yes men around now have a permanent yes man in their pockets. I'm really seeing the effect on certain types of personality and it gets them in a sort of business psychosis that can be pretty entertaining to watch when your job is not at stake. They really are leaving reality at escape velocity, who knows what this will lead to.
Well, current High-level Management Culture is very short-termist and mainly anchored on Priviledged Upbringing, Salesmanship and People Skills (networking, spinning good stories, growing up in the right families and so on) rather than Competence in Strategy or Analytical ability.
As it so happens, the upsides of AI are of the immediate and obvious variety - basically as you listed - and pretty similar to those of outsourcing (but on the shorter term AI is actually cheaper). Meanwhile the downsides are mainly longer term costs and risks, and/or derived from complex or systemic characteristics of AI, for example:
All this to say, that since the "qualities" of present day upper management are seldom in areas like Strategy and Risk Analysis whilst the problems of AI are mainly complex, long-term and/or systemic whilst its upsides are mainly of the highly visible and immediate kind (thus easy to stop and appealing for Salesmen and Tactician types), it totally makes sense that so many CEOs are going into AI.
It's funny because executives and managers are more similar to target for replacement if all you have is a bot that parrots back what it heard and can't think for itself.
The line item for Payroll is often called "burden," if that tells you how they think.
Yes to all of this, but I think you're giving them too much credit. There's a more compelling reason that is causing this behavior cycle among executives. Like a school of fish, CEOs swim in the direction and speed they see other CEOs swimming without giving a second thought to why they're following along. There's safety staying with the group. They're going in circles because all the other CEOs are doing the same thing and they fear being left behind, regardless of whether it truly makes any business sense. There's no real thought behind it. "Big tech is doing this, and therefore so should we."
Why do people with MBAs whose entire training is on how to network follow the trend unthinkingly?
Because CEOs do not think long term. They only think in terms of 3-12 months.
Sure they might save a bunch of money by firing their whole work force and using AI. They will immediately gain a shit ton of profit over the next year simply from the lower expenses.
But then their company services will go to shit, customers will get pissed, their revenues will start to decline but that takes years to show on the books and by then they will probably be at some new company.
Not only that, once they fire their workforce and AI cost 2 million a year instead of 5 million for people, two years later AI companies will increase the costs to 4 million. Then 4 years later it will be 6 million. They can't cancel the contract because then they will have to re-hire and re-train an entire workforce which they already had and probably would only cost them $6 million a year at that point if they had kept them.
Then two years later it will cost them 8 million. So on and so forth
They do not realize that AI costs will increase over time a lot faster than what workers demand since workers don't have as many rights as AI corporations, and they will be held hostage by AI companies once they get suckered in.
to add to the other excellent theories here: Most if not all flagship AI right now is extremely sycophantic. Not only is it a magic black box that gives correct-sounding answers and never needs to sleep, eat or unionize; it also makes you, the user, feel ✨ s p e c i a l ✨. and wouldn't you know it, CEOs fucking love being made to feel like they're the smartest man in the room, even when (sometimes especially when) they are in fact the biggest moron to suck oxygen in a five mile radius. LLMs are genuinely phenomenal at making your unhinged, disconnected-from-reality half-baked ideas not only sound good, but then they also convince you you're the next Einstein for thinking of them.
Yeah, gee, I wonder why CEOs love AI so much.
Cuz theyre trying to get everyone else to love it so they can control everything
Typically, wages are the largest expense of most any business. CEO's still get hugely embarrassing monetary bonuses, no matter what they do or don't do. Getting rid of the biggest expense (humans) would shoot their bonuses into the stratosphere. Pretty soon all CEO's will own their own spaceships, not just the current billionaire spaceship owners.
It's "ethical" slavery, why wouldn't they like it?
As said, the problem isn't the AI/LLM as such, but big corps and capitalism which use and develope it for greedy reasons and legislators who are not able to establish clear rules and limitations (or paid don't want).
Remember 10 years back when block chain was all the rage. Companies raced to develop using it. CEO s answer to the board, and if the board members are inundated with marketing crap about the next big tech thing, they will wonder why the CEO is not testing and or implementing.
Board members get caught up in media hype and will treat a CEO who seems to ignore it as questionable.
So board thinks AI is the shit. They ask CEO what are we doing with the new AI tech. If CEO answers that its worthless, but other large companies are testing it and media won't shut up about it, then board questions CEOs judgement.
It's kind of stupid really, who'll need a CEO or even a manager when you have AI just doing all the work? They will not be relevant if their wet dream comes through.
For the saner ones, it's an excuse to layoff workers after over-hiring. AFAICT there are not AI systems that completely replace a human bean.
It allows them to fantasize about all the benefits of slavery without the pesky downsides.
Yep combination of the potential profits and the potential to massively devalue the power of laborers.
They hate employees
CEOs have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of shareholders. That's literally it. If "Metaverse" or "AI" makes line go up, they are legally obligated to talk about it.
The actual technology or product has nothing to do with the job of being a CEO the same way Mattel's accounting department doesn't need to understand where Skipper fits in the Barbie family tree.
And for the private companies?
For private companies they can do whatever the ceo/owners believe will make money.
At the C-suite level there are a lot of people who are misinformed about AI because of media reporting and a couple positive interactions. Because private or not their circle includes the ones pushing AI. More work done, less effort sounds great if you haven't yet realized consequences of work quality dropping much less the longer-term loss of a younger generation that never gets trained or makes money to buy product.
There is already a severe economic issue wherein products simply aren't made for the bottom 70-90% of the population. A majority of buying/selling has been over decades focusing to an upper range of earners. Its why the average new car is now nearly 50K while median wage is 62k/y.
Matell is a public company but if it were taken private the accountants (or CEO) would still not require a deep knowledge of Barbie family relationships.
In practoce though, that's not how fidiciary duty works. That's really just an excuse. As long as there is any reason any business decision has any reasonable argument that it might help the company, it is legal as far as fidiciary duty is concerned. And, given anything could hypothetically build beneficial consumer sentiment, it's about as toothless as perjury charges.
Because the shareholders expect CEOs to like AI
machines break down all the time.
Um no that's exactly what LLM companies demand.
You're paying a contract, and no you can't just sack them like a worker.
Yes you have to pay insurance.
The tech industry is stronger than any union.
The tech industry is more litigious than any worker.
Have you heard of a duty cycle ? No machine works 24/7