this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
202 points (99.5% liked)
Fuck AI
7168 readers
1269 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.