4 ms·
Because the people supplying the automation would extract the surplus that otherwise goes to the ceo?
by xyzzy123 10mo ago
Because the people supplying the automation would extract the surplus that otherwise goes to the ceo?
- jojobas 10mo agoIf there's competition they'll race each other to costs+overhead.
- xyzzy123 10mo agoWhat is the difference that explains why this doesn't seem to happen for humans in the ceo role, but would happen if the role were fulfilled by automation?
- tbrownaw 10mo agoMostly the massive supply increase that automation always brings.
- xyzzy123 10mo agoI'm not sure you can get around the principal-agent problem that easily. Who sets the policy levers on the automation and governs it? They inherit the ceo's negotiating leverage with shareholders. It seems like you'd need some sort of fairly radical control structure (say, no board, just ai interacting directly with shareholders) to get around this. But even this ignores that the automation is not neutral, it is provided by actors with incentives.
- hsbauauvhabzb 10mo agoThis. The enshittification doesn’t happen until later, at which point it’s too late to fix.
- gruez 10mo agoSince when did people support CEOs as some sort of jobs or redistribution program? It's at least somewhat plausible to mandate bullshit jobs like gas station attendants or whatever to keep teenagers employed, but nobody is clamoring for CEOs to exist to screw over shareholders.
- xyzzy123 10mo agoI didn't mean it as a moral statement, but as a practical observation that a person with effective control over a company has a lot of leverage when it comes to negotiating resource splits. Also, you want them to be aligned.