Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

homezlice t1_je09zjv wrote

Reply to comment by fluffy_assassins in Are the big CEO/ultra-responsible/ultra-high-paying positions in business currently(or within the next year) threatened by AI? by fluffy_assassins

OK I'll bite. First off shareholders are not the ones who directly control appointing a CEO in publicly traded companies, that goes to the board generally. The board would need a human in charge of whatever AI oversaw a company for legal reasons alone. Because otherwise who would be liable for criminal wrongdoing, taxes, etc. Companies are formed from the ground up with assumption of humans in control. Even if shareholders decided they wanted an AI in charge it just could not happen, an S Corp requires humans in the loop, at the top.

Now, an AI for sure could be running the vast majority of the day to day operations. But for an AI to actually be CEO would require unending hundreds of years of law. I don't expect it to actually happen, instead CEOs will control AI and reduce human headcount below them. Bummer I know..and maybe that will then trigger bigger economic change. But the idea that we are going to jump right to AI being considered legally human is unbelievably farfetched and unlikely.

3

czk_21 t1_je0p48f wrote

> But for an AI to actually be CEO would require unending hundreds of years of law. I don't expect it to actually happen

AI can easily learn all laws in humaan existence now, thats nonissue, problematic could be reasoning but as we can see GPT-4 scores better than 90% of people in law bar exams...

AI can also take note of markets in real time and do complicated market analysis in seconds/minutes, no human can compete

AI can make company more efficient and as bonus you wont need to pay millions to CEO, its win win

5

homezlice t1_je0tlrw wrote

You're missing my point. An AI is not a human thus cannot be a human in a legal sense which is required for it to have a position as a CEO. Does not matter at all how good a tool performs it is not covered as a human nor should it be.

1

czk_21 t1_je0vvsz wrote

you said that board of directors needs to be human, not CEO, I guess it depends on state, since it is possible in china, also even if it would be not allowed now, that can be changed...

4

homezlice t1_je19bdz wrote

A private company is going to be different I am discussing US law here. But no, it can't be changed, you need a human to be responsible at the top of an organization legally, otherwise artifical entities could spin up endless fake companies.

1

Redducer t1_je0wwh8 wrote

I am thinking intensely of the scene with the robot ambassador at the United Nations in Animatrix now.

2

fluffy_assassins OP t1_je0m0zg wrote

Sounds about right. I can only hope the powerful trend towards only influencing things in name only for legal reasons and are happy to chill on a beach or otherwise fuck right off.

1

flyblackbox t1_je234fu wrote

What about decentralized autonomous organizations run on the block chain via smart contracts? If what you’re saying is true, that traditional companies are unable to be run by AI, there will be new organizations that are able, and it will be new competition for the traditional corporate structure.

AI being considered legally human is unlikely, but isn’t more unlikely that human CEOs will be able to compete with AI leaders? Because if a novel organizational structure can be formed in order to accommodate the legal challenges presented by the limitation of personhood requirements for traditional corporations, it will outcompete.

1

homezlice t1_je2sxph wrote

If you want to change any of that you have to change how companies are formed and recognized. And I don't see any incentive for people to opt out of the loop. Especially lawyers.

1