The most ironic thing is thar the middle managers are somehow surviving this. So far, anyway, but I think they’ll be found too sooner or latet
Even in good, reputable companies, there is a certain amount of legally/ethically dubious behavior that is nonetheless desirable.
An H1B candidate for a position has been found, but it must be demonstrated that there is no local candidate for that position. Every local candidate must fail the interview, whether or not that is fair.
You have a small team. You've hired someone good at their job, but over lunch, they've mentioned they plan to have 10 children, so they will be on parental and FMLA leave for 3+ months a year indefinitely. You need to find a problem with this person's performance.
You have a team of developers. One of them has done a great job this past year, but the project they are working on and their specialization is no longer needed. It would not be fair to them to give them a middling performance review, but it's in the company's interest that the limited compensation budget goes towards retaining someone with skills aligned to the future direction.
An AI would have any unethical or illegal prompting exposed for any court to examine. Likewise, there would be little reason not to maintain a complete record of everything the management AI is told or does. One could design an AI that leadership talks to off the record, which then manifests its instructions in its state, and then could lie (or be unable to prove) its instructions later. That would then be similar to a human manager.
But I don't think any court would accept such an off the record lying AI. So an AI probably can't keep any secrets, can't lie for the company's benefit in depositions or court, and can't take the fall for leadership.
A company is literally a group of people working towards the same goal. The people are just as important as the goal itself, it's not a company otherwise.
I actually do know of a small company that was quite badly screwed over by a vindictive employee who hated her boss, deliberately did not quit because she knew she was about to have another child, got pregnant and then disappeared for a year. Local law makes her unfireable almost regardless of reason (including not actually doing any work), and then gives her three months maternity leave too. So she basically just didn't work for a year. She said specifically she did that to get back at her boss, she didn't care about the company or its employees at all.
For a company of that size something like that can put it in serious financial jeopardy, as they're now responsible for paying a year's salary for someone who isn't there. Also they can't hire a replacement because the law also guarantees the job is still there after maternity leave ends.
> If any of these cases appears to lead to the downfall of a corporation, there were much bigger problems looming that actually caused the failing in the first place.
This kind of thinking has caused ruin throughout history. Companies - regardless of size - aren't actually piñatas you can treat like an unlimited cash machine. Every such law pushes a few more small companies over the edge every year, and then not only does everyone depending on that company lose, but it never gets the chance to grow into a big corporation at all.
Employees don't extract capital from companies, especially unsustainably.
Executives and Boards of Directors do though
I think that it would be hard to hide all the inputs and outputs of the AI from scrutiny by the court and then have the company or senior leadership be held accountable for them.
Even if you had a retention policy for the inputs and outputs, the AI would be made available to the plaintiff and the company would be asked to provide inputs that produce the observed actions of the AI. If they can't do that without telling the AI to do illegal things, it would probably result in a negative finding.
----
Having thought a bit more, I think the model that we'd actually see in practice at first is that the AI assists management with certain tasks, and the tasks themselves are not morally charged.
So the manager might ask the AI to produce performance reviews for all employees, basing them on observable performance metrics, and additionally for each employee, come up with a rationale for both promoting them and dismissing them.
The morally dubious choices are then performed by a human, that reviews the AI output and collects or discards it as the situation requires.
It often seems that AI 'will replace middle managers' though it would be more likely that middle managers would be made redundant, given a lack of people to 'manage'.