You see productivity gains have nothing to do with AI. It's being pushed down our throats because some elites have vested interest in its success and it's another way to extract more money from the consumers.

Because they don't actually care about "speed" or "efficiency". All they care about is having all the money. Every decision they make is in service of that goal, including what words they say in public.

Real answer: because the CEO is the figurehead of the company. An AI can do exactly what a CEO can do except actually interacting with people. So the only necessary and “irreplaceable” job of the CEO is to meet with people and get them to make a deal or invest or whatever.

That being said, I don’t think there’s any job an LLM can replace a human for. Human’s aren’t hired as next word predictors. Even the CEO has more to their decision making job than making decisions. Knowing what decisions to make is something the AI can’t do.

CEOs are overpaid though. Their jobs aren’t hard and mostly what determines their success is luck.

The rich have class solidarity. They're not going to casually fuck each other over like that.

Catching crime lords in hypocritical pretzel logic doesn't work. The issue isn't with their logic. The issue is with a society that allows itself to be captured by capitalism.

I think that middle management has more to worry about.

For a publicly traded business, this could greatly benefit the share holder with a more efficient AI CEO to steer the ship.

Now there is an idea. But the money that the CEO would be paid would go to workers right? Right?!

Its likely the only use case that would actually pay off and it makes sense as the board of directors can have it made and maybe even do a lot of chief and vp stuff.

AI is currently really bad with business decisions. Like laughably so. There have been several small attempts, say letting an LLM manage a vending machine. I believe they've all flopped. Compare to performance in image creation/editing and programming performance (where, on measurables, they do relatively well). When an AI that could run a business OK exists, you should expect to see it happen.

CEO's are paid so much primarily because the turn to paying them in stocks. This changed because of pay-caps for executives (so to compete for CEOS, companies offered stocks). The idea was that this would align their incentives with the shareholders. Unfortunately, this has lead to a lot of extremely short term company policy by CEOs, spiking stock value to cash out.

This is possible and much easier than with the people who usually do the actual work that makes a company sucessfull.

For example, this chinese company has done it and performs very well: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/ai-ceo-artificial-intelligence-b2302091.html

You would not want to use AI anywhere it matters. Only in places where it does not matter if you get it right the first, second or even the third time, like customer support.

i said back when people first started talking about AI replacing workers... if there's one job that can easily be replaced by AI, it's a fucking CEO.

CEO is a political position, not a productive role. The job of the Chief Executive is to be a high level influencer with lenders, high level clients, and other business partners. For AIs to fill this role, they would need to be established as more influential than their human peers.

While its certainly possible (and arguably the desired end result of Microsoft/Google/et al) to replace a C-level with an AI, the end result would be a machine that serves the interests of the operators (presumably Microsoft/Google/whomever) rather than the business for which it is providing the service.

Because the purpose of a CEO is wealth transfer. Controlling the company is purely incidental.

What you do with money ? Give it to people so they stop working ? CEOs are needed so people earn enough money to survive but not enough to live or rebel against the system. Just like chickens. You cut chicken wings so they don't fly away.

Because an AI doesn't have legal standing. It can't own a company, close contracts, get loans, hire people nor can it sue others. It can at best act as a representative of a real CEO. There's still a human signing on the dotted line

It also doesn't come with daddies money and contacts to set up a startup and call investors.

You'd probably get fewer hallucinations.

Because the first word of your question is "if".

There was a study on that I remember about a year ago that seemed to get buried real fast

I know. Right? The rich protect the rich. That's why. They have their own union and you aren't part of it.

CEO's are already using AI as a tool to help them understand their companies by dumping their company data into these models as a way to understand their companies.

I just don't see any company creating an AI to replace a CEO in its entirety, yet.

Who's going to make that decision? The CEO?

Just set growth to 10%!

Because we know language models can't run a business.

https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1

Every one of us is utterly replaceable, including the billionaires and multi-billionaires.

For all the status quo that they push for, they don't actually do anything special.

You could take the average billionaire, strip them of all their worth and hand it over to some millionaire, and basically nothing would change as far as the planet is concerned.

This is not a scenario where we are all NPCs to their game. We are all players, but more to the point, they are as expendable and interchangeable as we are.