So there’s something I need to get off my chest, and if I post it on my LinkedIn it would be career suicide at my level.
In a company, the largest line item by far is usually payroll. I have been at a number of companies that are trying to cut costs and don’t care if you come up with the correct amount via other OpEx categories, they want headcount reduced because “it’s so much”.
So along comes the promise of a computer bot that understands the normal person and also:
- Does not require sick/vacation time
- Does not take FMLA
- Does not want a bonus/profit sharing/equity
- Don’t have to pay unemployment taxes, Medicare or SSI
- Does not require them to spend money on health insurance
- Will not form a union
- Wont ever file a lawsuit for any number of reasons
- Will work 24/7
And this right there is the exact reason so many CEOs are salivating at the idea of AI. Not for worker efficiency, not for any number of “positive” benefits they may taut, but they finally have a glimpse of the chance to rid themselves of one of the largest headaches that they perceive in a company.
CEOs have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of shareholders. That’s literally it. If “Metaverse” or “AI” makes line go up, they are legally obligated to talk about it.
The actual technology or product has nothing to do with the job of being a CEO the same way Mattel’s accounting department doesn’t need to understand where Skipper fits in the Barbie family tree.
And for the private companies?
For private companies they can do whatever the ceo/owners believe will make money.
At the C-suite level there are a lot of people who are misinformed about AI because of media reporting and a couple positive interactions. Because private or not their circle includes the ones pushing AI. More work done, less effort sounds great if you haven’t yet realized consequences of work quality dropping much less the longer-term loss of a younger generation that never gets trained or makes money to buy product.
There is already a severe economic issue wherein products simply aren’t made for the bottom 70-90% of the population. A majority of buying/selling has been over decades focusing to an upper range of earners. Its why the average new car is now nearly 50K while median wage is 62k/y.
Matell is a public company but if it were taken private the accountants (or CEO) would still not require a deep knowledge of Barbie family relationships.
In practoce though, that’s not how fidiciary duty works. That’s really just an excuse. As long as there is any reason any business decision has any reasonable argument that it might help the company, it is legal as far as fidiciary duty is concerned. And, given anything could hypothetically build beneficial consumer sentiment, it’s about as toothless as perjury charges.