3 ms·

This makes perfect sense when you consider who is making the decisions. If you are trying to, say, replace an ad-buying team with an AI that supposedly does the

This makes perfect sense when you consider who is making the decisions. If you are trying to, say, replace an ad-buying team with an AI that supposedly does the job better, your goal has to be to sell it at a high enough level that the political pressure of having the old department employed doesn't tank everything regardless of results. One can try to sell to a CEO than an IT department is a cost center, and they can bring in the same results for less. But to replace a CEO you need to sell to the board, and the board is typically full of CEOs. Even a far superior CEO that costs $1 a day is a hard sell when the CEO is your buddy, and you aren't going to be making a mint as a board member for getting rid of said buddy.

woah 2y ago
If far superior AI CEOs existed then only one board would need to replace their CEO with AI. The company would then dominate the marketplace because of the far superior decisions being made, and the rest would be forced to follow. If AI CEOs were slightly inferior to human CEOs, but cost $1 per year, it still wouldn't be worth replacing an expensive human CEO, unless that CEO's compensation was worth more than a few percent of revenue (it never is). I wouldn't want to invest my money in a company which was making worse decisions to try to save money on the CEO, when the money paid to the CEO is going to have very little effect on my return on investment. That sounds like a good way to for my investment to underperform. The only winner in that scenario is online forum posters who want to feel jealous of the abstract concept of a "CEO".