Should we automate CEOs?

just_sayin

@Dreamer
98 to 99 percent of CEO decisions could be made by someone else.  its that other 1 percent that they earn their money for. 

Why are you jealous about what they make?  Do you think they stole their money?  They did not.  They were hired by a board.  Do you think the board did not do its due diligence in finding a CEO?  Do you think they voluntarily chose to vastly overpay someone for the CEO role and cheat investors?  Seriously, is that what you think?  I'm seriously asking.  Cause it seems to me, that the board who hires the CEO knows more about their company's needs and the role, along with the appropriate salary, than anyone else, especially a government bureaucrat.

it seems to me the desire to limit the CEOs salary is about greed, and not the CEO's' greed.

jack

Dreamer said:

That being said the CEO would be a good place to start automating to reduce costs. With such high pay more expensive automation systems become feasible like Google Deepmind, Cortana, and IBM Watson.

Hello Dreamer:

True, but you didn't go far enough.  Once AI self replicates, human intelligence will be outmoded.. 

excon

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Gold is your God.

@just_sayin

"One of three billionaires on this list whose wealth derives from the smoking industry" Katie Sola

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiesola/2016/03/10/40-billionaires-who-won-fortunes-in-the-business-of-vice/?sh=25a9ba7f7505

Stop protecting these greedy CEOs and worshiping the golden calf.

"“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?" Cromwell

"Why are you jealous about what they make? " Just_Sayin

Begging the question, I am not jealous I pity them.

John_C_87

@Dreamer

Please, describe how Corporate Executive officers are to be replaced with computer automation.There is a plan? There is a mission statement? What details can you provide that the information is thought out? How much money is to be saved or is it simple being moved to a different locations as cost in the economy? I’m jealous and don’t mind saying so. What is involved in the job and how do we as programmers translate this dream or nightmare into code? The impression is maybe you are expecting the code itself to be smart enough to analyze the job and mimic a behavior.

jack

Argument Topic: Please, describe how Corporate Executive officers are to be replaced with computer automation.

Hello John:

Please list, with specificity, the jobs/professions that CAN'T be manufactured and/or programmed. 

Truck drivers?  Nahhh

Office workers?  Nahh

Factory workers?  Nahh

TV show writers?  Nahh

Actors?  Nahh

Dish washers?  Nahh

Cooks??   Nahh

Farm workers?  Nahh

Course, you won't need farms cause robots don't eat. Seriously, gimme ONE!  One is all I want.

In fact, it could be said, that humans were put here on earth for the sole purpose of creating the robot master race.

excon

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Stop protecting these greedy CEOs and worshiping the golden calf....Begging the question, I am not jealous I pity them.

Greedy?  It is not greedy to ask for what you are worth.  Please remember that no CEO sets their own salary.  A board does.  And boards know their company, and they know the industry that they are in.  Boards have a fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders.   So they aren't interested in paying too much nor too little.  Why are you projecting greed on them.  You are imposing your personal "oughts" on them.  You think they ought not be getting so much, so you want to mandate your will.  Your position is beyond live and let live you want to control their income potential.  

You do come across as jealous.  You want to take from others what they have rightfully earned,, and which you do not have.  You feel compelled to not allow people to negotiate the wage of someone's work and hours.    I live near DC, and there are a lot of museums there.  The Hirshhorn Museum has a wide variety of art in it.  It will have pieces that are worth millions on display.  Some of which I like and some of which I think are junk.  But I have never said to myself that I will fight to limit what the artist makes.  Yet, you are suggesting that CEOs pay be limited.  That's a very jealous reaction.  If you don't think that's jealousy, what is your definition of the word?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Some CEOs get paid huge amounts and do terrible jobs.

@just_sayin

"And look, if someone does a good job, they should get paid well. A lot of CEOs, however, get paid ungodly amounts of cash, even when they do an objectively terrible job. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav, for example, raked in $247 million back in 2021 — only to be named the "worst CEO of 2022" shortly thereafter."

https://futurism.com/the-byte/replacing-ceos-with-ai-makes-sense

"A reminder that people who possess great wealth in a time of poverty are directly causing that poverty…

by

• A.Q. Smith

"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-immoral-to-be-rich

I think it is immoral to be rich. Even if you work hard for your money there is diminishing returns. Let alone low performance CEOs including David Zaslav or those that make their money immorally selling vice.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: One CEO is already artificial intelligence.

@John_C_87

"

• NetDragon Websoft announced last year it had appointed a bot as the CEO of its flagship subsidiary.
• The firm's stock has risen in recent months, outpacing the Hong Kong market."

https://www.businessinsider.com/video-game-company-made-bot-its-ceo-stock-climbed-2023-3?op=1

Just look up how NetDragon Websoft has a robot CEO Tang Yu. This is not the future we are already there.

John_C_87

  I'm not touching this one..........
Sorry.........
I can't be subjective or non-biased in a programming sense... What is being done can be rephrased a couple different ways...
I will keep reading though I like the debate topic great job.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

"A reminder that people who possess great wealth in a time of poverty are directly causing that poverty…
by A.Q. Smith

That is an unnatural level of in that quote.  People are not born that .  That level of stupidity requires indoctrination at a very liberal psuedo-educational institution.  Let's go back to Apple for a moment.  On the day it went public - 40 of its employe's became millionaires.  The average salary for an Apple employee is $143k per year, which includes an average base salary of $123k and an average bonus of $21k. Apple's total number of employees in 2022 was 164,000, a 6.49% increase from 2021. So since you posted the quote, tell me who Apple made poor?  I've worked with a lot of homeless people who had iPhones.  Are you saying  Apple is to blame?  

The idea that the economy is like a pie where if someone gets a big piece than someone else must have less is nonsense.  Innovation creates new jobs and new resources in the process.  What someone produces is not just stuff out of the ground, but their mind also.  You have believed the most damnable of all of socialism's lies.  The reason everyone in Cuba is poor is not because their isn't enough socialism there, its because its there.  Why try to start your own business when the country will seize the property and business and leave you without anything?  Cuba is gorgeous, but companies don't build or invest there. Who is going to build a hotel in Cuba when the government will just seize it?  Do you know why all the cars in Cuba are from the 1950s?  Its because that's the last time people could afford them.  Since socialism took over - poverty prevails.   

I think it is immoral to be rich. 

The Bible says that it is the LOVE of money that is a root of evil.  Poor people are just as likely to be obsessed with money as the rich.  Which leads us back to the sins of jealousy and envy - or as the 10th commandment calls it "covertness".  Money, is just a tool.  Some have more than others.  Why do you feel that people who worked for their wages do not deserve it?  Why do you feel that people who inherited their wealth do not have the right to keep it if their parent, who did work for it, wants them to have it?  Surely, we should care for the poor and not be more concerned about money than we should, but to conclude that the rich must therefore be evil is also an immoral claim based in envy and jealousy.  Since you prefer quotes from others than using your own words let me leave you with some quotes:

“But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth…” - Deuteronomy 8:18, NIV

Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,  and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit. - Exodus 23:2-3

“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. - Leviticus 19:15

You believe we should show favoritism to the poor in legal matters, college admissions, employment opportunities, promotions, etc.  right?  Where do you think that mentality comes from?  Yes, I know "socialism".  But why does it stick with you? I think such ideologies of hate appeal to people's envy and jealous. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I agree that poor people become obsessed about money.

@just_sayin

Yes, I do agree that poor people become obsessed about money.

One problem with the Bible is a person can cherry pick quotes easily.

20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 10:17-31&version=NLT

"Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 18:25&version=NIV

There is the seven deadly sins, one of which is greed.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Yes, I do agree that poor people become obsessed about money.

And yes i agree that rich people can become obsessed with money.  I don't think it is a given though.  I am good friends with the VP of a major pharmaceutical company.  He's loaded, but the nicest and most down to earth person you would ever meet.  And unlike many SJWs he is out feeding the homeless every week.  

The Bible mentions several people who were rich: Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.  It isn't money that is evil.  It is a tool.  Its the emotions that we attach to it that can be evil.  That's why I disagree with you and don't think we should limit what someone can get for their time, work, or risk taking.  

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 18:25&version=NIV

So proud of you, you quoted a Bible verse from my favorite online Bible resource.

There is the seven deadly sins, one of which is greed.

I thought the 7 deadly sins was an anime show.  Seriously, the 7 deadly sins is more of a Catholic thing. I'm not Catholic.  There are lots of verses though that talk about greed, jealousy and envy.  They are all sins.  

Am I right in pointing out that Critical Theory supporters believe that poor people and some races should be treated differently by the law, in college admissions, employment opportunities, promotions, being awarded grants, and in getting government contracts? Biblically that's unjust.  It shows favoritism to someone based on their income or race.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am more worried about rich people being shown favoritism.

@just_sayin

"economists compare rich kids and their less affluent peers who have achieved roughly equal academic credentials (measured by SAT scores and GPAs). Yet, even then, the rich kids are still way more likely to get into elite colleges." Greg Rosalsky

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/07/24/1189443223/affirmative-action-for-rich-kids-its-more-than-just-legacy-admissions

Most critical race supporters just want an equal chance as opposed to favoritism.

"white names were 50 percent more likely to get a call back, that means that black names were 33 percent less likely to do so."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Most critical race supporters just want an equal chance as opposed to favoritism.
"white names were 50 percent more likely to get a call back, that means that black names were 33 percent less likely to do so."

This is going to hurt, but you can handle the truth.  Critical Theory is immoral and dehumanizes people.  It sees them only based on their group affiliation and reduces them to only that.  It does not see individuals with different circumstances and merits.  That why this unethical ideology can dismiss discriminating against white and Asian individuals - because they are guilty of being white and Asian.  That alone is enough to make them guilty.  You know that's the truth.  They are not interested in the best individual getting into the school, but the right race getting in. That's racism.  And it is favoritism, which the Bible calls "sin".  The correct response to sin is to repent, not double down on it.

White names were more likely to get in, because statistically more white individuals had higher GPAs and SATs.  Are you under the wrong assumption that everyone has the same GPA and SAT scores?  You have also made a wrong assumption thinking the issue is solely about race.  Are there other factors that influence educational outcomes other than race?  Some steeped in the racist ideology of Critical Theory may argue that race is the only factor, but that is a lie.  

Would it surprise you to learn that while 53.7% of Americans have a college degree or post secondary credential, only 27.4% of Appalachian adults do? Considering that 98% of Appalachia is white, according to Critical Theory supporters white privilege should be overwhelming evident in Appalachian American college degree rates.  Its easy for CT believers to dehumanize Appalachian Americans and not be concerned for their plight.  I mention Appalachian Americans because many of the reasons they don't succeed educationally are the same reasons why inner city Black kids don't - high rate of single parents, high rate of truancy, high rate of teen pregnancies, high rate of drug use, schools not offering college preparatory courses, lack of appreciate of education from family and community, etc.  There are some Appalachian counties where 60% of kids under 18 are in homes where a parent has an opioid addiction.   

I don't see Critical Theory supporters wanting Appalachian American students have an equal chance.  And the reason is quite evident.  Appalachian Americans don't matter to them because most are white.

MayCaesar

The most sophisticated AI agents are nowhere near the level of cognitive ability required to work as a CEO in a major company on the modern market. There is a reason those "costs" are so high... and if anything, it is surprising that they are not much higher. For instance, Ford's CEO earned approximately $21m in 2022, which constitutes approximately 0.01% of Ford's operating expenses - considering the impact of his work, this is a negligible amount.

Developing an AI that comes close to being able to do everything Ford's CEO is required to do on a daily basis - negotiate with partners and investors, manage countless branches of the company, analyze feedback from tens of advisors, interact with the press, deal with litigation, et cetera - would cost far more than 0.01% of Ford's operating expenses, and even leading companies fully dedicated to developing relatively human-like AIs such as OpenAI have not achieved much success there. Paying Jim Farley $21m a year is a deal of the century for the shareholders of the company, while what you are proposing would be a complete and utter disaster at this stage of technological evolution.

Do not assume that you can just look at the number of digits in someone's salary and make a reasonable proposal on restructurization of the whole company's chain of command. There are thousands highly qualified specialists in every large corporation working day and night on the problem of reducing operating costs of the company, and if they could not come up with a better system than this, chances are you will not either. Especially when...

Dreamer said:

Stop protecting these greedy CEOs and worshiping the golden calf.

you seriously say childish nonsense like this. "Greedy"... Let me know when someone offers you a good salary and you say, "No, I am not greedy; please lower my salary in half, and then I will come work for you". Better yet, take the full salary and send half of it to me, so you can feel better about yourself.

jack

MayCaesar said:

The most sophisticated AI agents are nowhere near the level of cognitive ability required to work as a CEO in a major company on the modern market.

Hello M:

Couple things..  Cognitive ability is what AI is all about, and they WILL get better.  Cognitive ability is ALL CEO's are about, and they WON'T get better.

excon

just_sayin

The underlying premise of the argument that A.I. should take over as CEOs is that CEOs make too much money.  The very premise is flawed as CEOs do not set their salary, their salary is set by a board - a board which must look out for the interests of its stock holders and which knows its field of business.  Boards don't want to overpay, or underpay.  They know the demands and skill sets needed for their industry.  To think that someone in government, who thinks the DMV is efficient, should dictate the salary for a CEO is an utter joke.

Jealousy and envy seem to be a large motivation for removing CEOs in this argument.  No one should dictate to another what their time and labor are worth, without their consent.  CEOs make voluntary agreements regarding their pay and benefits.  They should not be limited by government action.  Just because someone is envious of another's success is insufficient reason to limit their success.  In societies where people's earning potential is limited such as Cuba and North Korea, you see mass poverty.  When you discentivize people taking risks and doing their best, you end up with a society that has a lot of equity, but lots of poverty.

MayCaesar

@jack

No AI has ever even remotely approached the cognitive ability of a human being, and the most sophisticated AIs only excel in very narrow tasks applied to self-contained environments. An AI that rivals human ability to reason may appear in 10 years, or in 1,000 years, or never. When it does appear, then the OP's argument will be relevant.

As for CEOs' cognitive ability not becoming better... to me that sounds like a preposterous statement. CEOs nowadays have to wrestle with issues of the degree of sophistication that no enterpreneur had to a few decades ago. The domestic, let alone the international, market complexity is the highest it has ever been, and it keeps increasing exponentially. The fact that CEOs accomplish anything at all is a testament to their incredible ability to adapt to increasingly complex market, and I do not see how such adaptation is possible without corresponding growth in their cognitive ability. The harder the problems you have to deal with every day, the more your cognitive ability is challenged, and the faster it evolves.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Goggle Deepmind defeats Go! champion Lee Sedol in 2016.

@MayCaesar

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ais-victories-in-go-inspire-better-human-game-playing/

AI defeats poker pros.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/11/20690078/ai-poker-pluribus-facebook-cmu-texas-hold-em-six-player-no-limit

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

That is great. Please contact Microsoft's shareholders and tell them that the supreme criterion in choosing a CEO that they are to use should be his ability to play poker.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am proving that many measures of intelligence AI has challenged or surpassed humans.

@MayCaesar

Bigger companies may be more difficult to replace, but their CEOs also get even higher salary ratio than smaller companies CEOs. Therefore, more incentive to replace CEOs of large companies with automation that runs 24/7.

For Facebook "CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 510.7-to-1." EPI

Or "Amazon CEO Andrew Jassy's 2021 salary, as the Hustle notes, capped out at a staggering $213 million, a number amounting to the collective earnings of 6,474 average Amazon employees." Maggie Harrison futurism

Dreamer

@MayCaesar

Bigger companies may be more difficult to replace, but their CEOs also get even higher salary ratio than smaller companies CEOs. Therefore, more incentive to replace CEOs of large companies with automation that runs 24/7.

For Facebook "CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 510.7-to-1." EPI

Or "Amazon CEO Andrew Jassy's 6,474 average Amazon employees."  futurism

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

Economical incentive is not created by the need to decrease operational expenses as much as possible, but by the need to increase profit as much as possible. Your claim that there is "more incentive to replace CEOs of large companies with automation that runs 24/7" is based on faulty reasoning.

John_C_87

jack said:

Hello John:

Please list, with specificity, the jobs/professions that CAN'T be manufactured and/or programmed. 

Truck drivers?  Nahhh

Office workers?  Nahh

Factory workers?  Nahh

TV show writers?  Nahh

Actors?  Nahh

Dish washers?  Nahh

Cooks??   Nahh

Farm workers?  Nahh

Course, you won't need farms cause robots don't eat. Seriously, gimme ONE!  One is all I want.

In fact, it could be said, that humans were put here on earth for the sole purpose of creating the robot master race.

excon

Are you saying the driver of the Truck is replaced or is the truck that is driven upgraded by a driver in remote location driving multiple trucks at once knowingly increasing the risk of applicable lethal force. In this case the driver of the truck is the programmer and the number of trucks that are being moved is changed. As a Constitutional First Amendment Right identifying cost or legal grievance there was a congressional responsibility to connect such differences in programming responsibilities with state and federal licensing. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There's equal incentive to increase revenues as to cut expenses.

@MayCaesar

Profit = revenues - expenses. Your argument about increasing revenues is a red herring.

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

I am baffled that you managed to misinterpret even such a simple equation. Indeed, profit = revenue - expenses, and decreasing operational expenses can easily come with decrease in revenue, depending on how it is done. If shareholders no longer have to pay millions of dollars to the CEO, yet the automated CEO does a worse job than the human one, then revenue will also decrease substantially.

Now, take the case of the Ford company. As I mentioned above, the CEO salary constitutes 0.01% of the company's operational expenses - this is by how much they are going to be reduced if the CEO can be fully replaced by a magical automated CEO requiring absolutely zero expenses to maintain (highly unlikely). Do you think that, if that automated CEO is not fully up to the task, the revenue will drop by a comparable amount? One bad trade deal on the CEO's part can sometimes cause a company's stocks to plunge by 10-20%. 0.01% of operational expenses is nothing next to that.

It seems to me, Dreamer, that your entire argument is built on your personal emotional disgust at the fact that CEOs enjoy much more luxurious lives than regular workers. I have not detected any interest on your part in actually making companies more profitable. I would guess that shareholders have much more interest in it than you do, and they are the ones actually putting their money on the line, rather than throwing cheap jabs at someone online in order to feel good about themselves - and they do not seem to share your views on how to enrich themselves better.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I've already addressed that some CEOs do terrible and jobs and get paid a lot.

@MayCaesar

"Discovery CEO David Zaslav, for example, raked in $247 million back in 2021 — only to be named the "worst CEO of 2022" shortly thereafter."" Futurism

I agree that if the CEO can be more profitable the company should stick with the CEO.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

A greater question is how will automation and AI impact workers jobs.  McDonald's workforce is about half of what it was 10 years ago or so.  Kiosks have replaced workers.  Same for grocery stores or Walmart.  Self-checkout has replaced some workers.  Some of those workers are now used for online orders, but automation and AI may replace the need for them also.  Automation may mean driverless trucks, and factories with fewer people.  While you have focused on CEOs, the more likely 'victim' of automation and AI are everyday workers.

jack

John_C_87 said:

Are you saying the driver of the Truck is replaced or is the truck that is driven upgraded by a driver in remote location

Hello John:

Both.

Trucks will drive themselves..  But, at the very same time, MOST of the freight trucks carry today, won't need to be trucked in the future.  Goods'l be manufactured in manufacturing centers...  

Which brings up a question...  What goods do robots need, after all, that CAN'T be manufactured down the road? 

excon

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

"Discovery CEO David Zaslav, for example, raked in $247 million back in 2021 — only to be named the "worst CEO of 2022" shortly thereafter."" Futurism

I agree that if the CEO can be more profitable the company should stick with the CEO.

Pretty bizarre to reference someone's income for year 2021, but point out their characterization from 2022... Regardless, the number of $247 million without any context does not mean much. Furthermore, the fact that someone has been hired to do something does not imply that they will do that something successfully: hiring committees and shareholders make mistakes sometimes.

None of this at all supports your claim that a CEO AI on the level available to do would be more profitable for a company than a decent CEO, or even a terrible human CEO. I have not found a single example of an AI CEO in an existing company doing work comparable to that of human CEOs, and the single case of an AI CEO being hired at all - in a rum-producing company Dictador - the role of the CEO appears to just be making public appearances for the shock value, and not any real decision-making.

I do strongly believe that any job that is better done by a machine than a human should be done by a machine. There is no reason in the year 2023 for human bricklayers to exist, for instance. However, jobs requiring as many diverse skills as that of a CEO would only be doable by something approaching the general AI, and we might be extremely far away from that. The closest thing we have to general AI is the most advanced NLP models - and even those models fail at the most basic general tasks routinely. ChatGPT 4 cannot consistently determine whether a given food item is rich in protein or not, and you want it to run multibillion companies? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

purplemonster

Argument Topic: The question is not “can” but “should”

The question is not can we automate CEOs, but should we automate CEOs. I’d argue that while CEOs certainly  can be automated, we should refrain from doing so because widespread fear would debilitate any company led by a computer program. 

To be clear, CEOs can be automated. A CEO’s exists to manage its company in a way that fulfills the mission statement within the bounds of specific constraints, such as an operating structure and U.S. law. As long as the constraints are specific, an automated program can follow them. While some problems — for instance, the political repercussions of making XYZ public statement — are murky, CEOs almost always consult experts before making decisions anyway. An automated CEO could simply be programmed to automatically consult a 3rd party expert whenever a straightforward decision isn’t available. 

So while CEO’s job can be automated, I’d argue that it shouldn’t be. Humans have dominated planet earth for over two million years. Any threat to that dominance would be treated with a mix of denial and fear: denial that anything but a human is capable of managing other humans, and fear that—should a computer program successfully manage hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of humans—it would spell the end of human dominance on earth and mark an epoch ruled by artificial intelligence. Fear, after all, is core to being human (humanity’s ancestors avoided being eaten due to a healthy paranoia about their surroundings). And more importantly, fear causes destructive behavior. Scared people could boycott the company’s products, protest the company’s existence, hack the company’s computer program, lobby for governmental regulation, publicly cancel the company’s board members, and more. Ultimately, all this backlash would hinder the company from delivering on its mission statement and making money, which is the whole purpose of creating a company in the first place. 

So I’d argue that while we can automate CEOs, especially with the help of 3rd party experts being consulted for decisions, we shouldn’t automate CEOs because public denial, fear, and backlash, would hinder the company from functioning normally.