Hacker News Reader

Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0 | Hacker News Reader

I know people get a chuckle out of it, but does it not make more sense to have CEO LLM that will make decisions without regard for its own needs, self-interest, conflicts and so on? Honestly, the longer this particular debate rages on, I think shareholders are looking the wrong set of humans to replace.

View on HN

Just hire a tall, handsome man with a full head of hair, but have all of their decisions and public statements scripted by CEO-BOT. You could train the LLM on a huge corpus of yes-men and sycophants, until it can perfectly imitate the output of a real CEO.

Our premise as a startup is that we should want CEOs that use AI to make higher quality decisions, than either status quo human only CEOs or AGI CEOs that do not have direct liability. The analogy is that planes are seen as safe using autopilot because the human pilot gets on board with you. Societally I think the same thing is true of CEO decision making AIs.

I think all key roles should have a LLM as a double-check. The CEO LLM recommends what the CEO should do and its another data point. Overtime, if the CEO does what the LLM recommends 99% of the time... you can replace the CEO.

We should do the same for courts and judges

Tbh, as craterbrained as LLMs are, they’d probably be able to make better decisions than some of these corporate leaders

Even if they didn't they'd be a hell of a lot cheaper. If, say, Microsoft can replace Satya Nadella with something that costs effectively nothing, is constantly available, and is even 95% as good, I'd think it would be a good deal for them.

Liability. Till we solve this, we cant really give AI any real responsibilities.

Human CEOs generally aren't held liable for their actions, so why would AI need to be? Once again, I think we're just smoothing out a wrinkle here.

I know this is more of a throwaway cynical quip, but this is a biased line of thinking. CEO's are, for obvious reasons, more likely to do things they wouldn't be held liable for, versus do things which would see them likely to be punished. So executives might, for example, get away with things by successfully skirting the line of legality.

Say an AI CEO blatantly crosses this line, now who is liable?

It's a cheese touch situation. Last human to make a decision.

It is already used widely across industries where one would think people should be more conservative ( healthcare transcription services come to mind, but it is hardly the only example of this ). As always in America, only lawsuits will shows us how the dust has settled.

I think as long as the LLM can "take full responsibility", there should be no objections from the shareholders.

Imagine saving an extra $50m per year? Yes, please!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com