If AI ends up running companies better than people, won’t shareholders demand the switch? A board isn’t paying a CEO $20 million a year for tradition, they’re paying for results. If an AI can do the job cheaper and get better returns, investors will force it.

And since corporations are already treated as “people” under the law, replacing a human CEO with an AI isn’t just swapping a worker for a machine, it’s one “person” handing control to another.

That means CEOs would eventually have to replace themselves, not because they want to, but because the system leaves them no choice. And AI would be considered a “person” under the law.

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    31·
    3 days ago

    The human brain is doing a lot of stuff that’s completely unrelated to “being intelligent.” It’s running a big messy body, it’s supporting its own biological activity, it’s running immune system operations for itself, and so forth. You can’t directly compare their complexity like this.

    It turns out that some of the thinky things that humans did with their brains that we assumed were hugely complicated could be replicated on a commodity GPU with just a couple of gigabytes of memory. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that everything else we do is as complicated as we thought either.

    • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 days ago

      Yeah a lot of it is messy, but they are not being replicated by commodity gpus.

      LLMs have no intelligence. They are just exceedingly well at language, which has a lot of human knowledge in it. Just read claudes system prompt and tell me it’s still smart, when it needs to be told 4 separate times to avoid copyright.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          1 day ago

          It’s amazing how quickly people dismiss technological capabilities as mundane that would have been miraculous just a few years earlier.

          yep, and it’s also amazing how people think new technologies are impossible, until they happen.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Machines_Which_Do_Not_Fly

          “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly” is an editorial published in the New York Times on October 9, 1903. The article incorrectly predicted it would take one to ten million years for humanity to develop an operating flying machine.[1] It was written in response to Samuel Langley’s failed airplane experiment two days prior. Sixty-nine days after the article’s publication, American brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully achieved the first heavier-than-air flight on December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

        • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 days ago

          I did not immediately dismiss LLM, my thoughts come from experience, observing the pace of improvement, and investigating how and why LLMs work.

          They do not think, they simply execute an algorithm. Yeah that algorithm is exceedingly large and complicated, but there’s still no thought, there’s no learning outside of training. Unlike humans who are always learning, even if they don’t look like it, and our brains are constantly rewiring themselves, LLMs don’t.

          I’m certain in the future we will get true AI, but it’s not here yet.