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.

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

    I have been having this vision you described for quite some time now.

    As time progresses, availability of resources on earth increases because we learn to process and collect them more efficiently; but on the other hand, number of jobs (or, demand for human labor) decreases continuously, because more and more work gets automated.

    So, if you’d draw a diagram, it would look something like this:

    X-axis is time. As we progress into the future, that completely changes the game. Instead of being a society that is driven by a constant shortage of resources and a constant lack of workers (causing a high demand for workers and a lot of jobs), it’d be a society with a shortage of jobs (and therefore meaningful employment), but with an abundance of resources. What do we do with such a world?