They just work harder and deserve to rule over humanity, nothing to be worried about

And, at least for one of them, they also tweet all day while somehow being invaluable in providing leadership for like 5 companies. At the same time. I can't even successfully effectively juggle 4-5 _projects_ at a time.

> Most of the big CEOs appear to be CEO of multiple companies (Musk and Bezos come to mind).

Most big CEOs are definitely not in charge of multiple companies. You hear about Musk and Bezos because they’re all over the news, but they’re all over the news because they’re not normal CEOs.

It’s well known that Musk’s relationship to his companies is primarily one of ownership and delegation. Bezos hasn’t been in charge of Amazon for a long time but people conveniently forget that at every opportunity.

> it really doesn't seem like it can be that hard of a job.

It’s funny how often I hear this about AI replacing jobs, with one exception: Everyone who repeats it is highly confident that AI can replace other jobs but once you get to the work they do they’ll stop and explain why it’s actually much harder than you think.

At that level its more about persuasion and personality than the ability to do the job. High performing CEOs can persuade employees, customers, government, media, investors, suppliers.

LLMs still cannot persuade anybody right now but maybe soon.

I'd expect that AI making top-level decisions would be disastrous for employees, especially in tech. An AI is going to relentlessly push for efficiency, and human talent simply can't be reduced to a single input to measure against cost (salary, benefits, devtools, etc). AI will constantly suggest lower costs and thus fewer people, it has no perception of product quality or satisfaction, and it's always going to question the value of the employees' contributions to building software (or other stuff), especially if those employees are themselves relying on AI assistance.

> using an LLM for CEO-work makes sense for when hard, rational, decisions need to be made (e.g. new divisions, layoffs, expansion, etc)

Hard disagree. Using an LLM for these decisions transforms it into a game of manipulating inputs.

If you thought it was bad when people were gaming metrics for performance reviews, imagine the nightmare of a company where everyone is trying to manipulate their work to appeal to the current preferences of the prompts HR is feeding to the LLM. Now imagine the HR people manipulating the prompts to get the answers they want, or leaking the prompts to their friends.

Without humans in the loop to recognize when incentives are being gamed it becomes a free for all.