Discussion
Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly building an AI clone to replace him in meetings
etchalon: And no value was lost.
stogot: Sounds like a shareholder lawsuit coming in 3, 2, 1.
fmbb: How or why though?Zuckerberg has unique power among CEOs in public companies. He controls the board and he owns a majority of voting shares.Sure they can theoretically sue him for some kind of gross mismanagement of the company or disloyalty, but why would the owner class do that? Investors are all in on AI replacing human workers. If they think Zuckerberg doing this is wrong, they would imply AI should not work in place of humans.
ckastner: I can understand the appeal; being able to be "present" without the time cost can mean (possibly significantly more) presence at the same cost. This could be very attractive especially to those managing personal relations, like sales representatives.But I'm surprised that the risks seem to be so underestimated.Once this clone exists, what happens if it gets out into the wild? Imagine everyone having full access do what is effectively a digital model of your personality. Imagine your competition putting your own model to use against you.And the better the approximation of this model, the worse the damage to yourself.
sam0x17: Very ironic for the billionaire to be openly replacing himself with AI, I suppose he believes his job is easy enough that an LLM can do it, so we definitely don't need him
ex1fm3ta: Zucerkberg is particularly talented in investing huge amount of money in stupid things.
edhelas: Maybe CEO are the easiest job to replace. If the AI clone can do what the Zuck can do the board can fire him and save a lot of money.
p1esk: The problem is - the board can’t fire him
yoyohello13: Imagine if this becomes popular. I'm sure CEOs will still be able to justify their massive salaries.
oulipo2: Wait!! He's not ALREADY a robot?
saaaaaam: This is extraordinary.The FT piece says "They added that the character was being trained on the billionaire’s mannerisms, tone and publicly available statements, as well as his own recent thinking on company strategies, so that employees might feel more connected to the founder through interactions with it."Surely the more likely outcome is that employees feel less connected to "the founder" because they know that there's a high chance they are simply talking to an AI clone?
empyrrhicist: > might feel more connected to the founder through interactions with itAlso... is that a thing most people want?
dwa3592: might be too robotic for the AI!
cousin_it: There was an old Soviet cartoon about a child who found a box containing two magical servants. He immediately asked them for ice cream and sweets. Well, since the servants "do everything for you", the first servant fetched the sweets for him, and the second one ate them for him. I've often thought about this cartoon since the AI thing started.
kingleopold: as long as he holds voting stock majority, he is good for centuries. nobody can even fire him from a publicly trading corp.
cpx86: What if he starts sending his AI clone to the board meetings and it votes to fire him and replace him with itself? :P
the_snooze: > being able to be "present" without the time cost can mean (possibly significantly more) presence at the same cost.This is magical thinking. "Presence" and "time cost" are inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other.When you use AI to decouple them, you're telling your audience/colleagues/attend that you want them to listen to you but not the other way around.
lostmsu: [delayed]
cosmicgadget: Wtf I love AI replacement now.
stvltvs: The real risk is when shareholders realize an LLM can do the CEO's job.
alex1138: But you still get a lot of "shareholder responsibility" comments. Imagine a company that dumps sewage into a river (be that literal or metaphorical). Internet people come around to tell you this is the nature of capitalism and shareholder structure means (increasing?) return on investment is critical and so CEOs have to spend all their waking hours having to juggle thisAm I arguing against this? I don't know - I'm not an economist. But I would like to point out there is such a thing as shareholder fraud and the venn diagram between "sacrifice quality to please shareholders" and "deceiving shareholders" has to be one big intersecting circle, you know? Especially when the guy (Zuckerberg with dual-class shares) can't ever be fired
