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

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".