74% of CEOs worry AI failures could cost them their jobs
58 comments
·November 4, 2025burningChrome
Neywiny
Just like Wi-Fi in Internet, and image editing is Photoshop, definitions get very lost and tangled. Couldn't agree with you more
nandomrumber
Do these people think that when they open a file on their computer there is literally some Susan walking down to some basement somewhere and retrieving a manilla folder with a ladder.
mateo411
Well, AI is changing so fast nobody can really tell you what it is.
righthand
My coworker is supposed to translate React webpage with 100% text and links into html and put in the WYSIWYG editor of the CMS. These are legal pages.
Q: What did he do to solve the problem?
A: pasted the raw react code and asked an Llm to translate it to html.
The Llm did a terrible job. For example, it converted unordered lists to paragraphs with break tags. When I asked why he didn’t just copy the rendered output from the browser, he didn’t know how to do that.
When he was shown how to do that, he said it would be too much work because the rendered output still contained css tags. So he would have to get the Llm to remove the tags for him.
This is an engineer who’s been developing software for at least 10 years, well before Llms even existed. Yet he cannot figure out how to do a simple regex find + replace. He has no clue that he’s wasted a huge amount of time fiddling with Llms.
Everyone thinks AI is a cheat code to their employment video game and I’m looking for a new job now because I’m surrounded by the downfall of humanity.
nis0s
I am confused why CEO salaries are still so high when AI can do most of their work? If companies are looking to improve margins, then decimating CEO salaries is a great place to start. I’d even say it’s a fiduciary duty to act on this sooner rather than later.
No one’s networking is worth hundreds of millions. A reasonable approach is to cap CEO salaries at $2-5M, and invest everything else in the business. How is this already not being done, AI has rendered a lot of their “analysis” common place.
abeppu
If you strongly feel that AI is doing analysis and decision-making at a level which is comparable to human executives, you and some like-minded people could try to form a PE group that takes over firms, replaces a highly compensated CEO with a lower compensation one and an OpenAI subscription, and see how you do.
However, only months ago Anthropic published about their autonomous vending machine experiment which had both humorous and interesting but not financially successful. I think maybe we're not to the point where AIs can run businesses. https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1
shermantanktop
The skill ladder for humans assumes CEO functions require higher and better skills than a vending machine manager. But there's no reason to assume that AI capabilities map to those jobs in the same way.
It's quite possible that an AI would do a better job at CEO than running a vending machine.
And it's quite possible that successful CEOs would not succeed at managing a vending machine. It's almost guaranteed that many will fail, given that some C-level people are selected for risk appetite and social skills over actual business acumen.
abeppu
I encourage you to read the Anthropic blog post, which includes situations like:
- hallucinating conversations with fictitious people
- role playing as a real person and telling them they are present in meatspace, or claimed to have visited a fictional location
- hallucinating details of an account involved in payments
- both ignoring lucrative opportunities and accepting loss-making deals
- making commitments before having done any research
While yes, the skills to run a vending machine and lead a company are not exactly the same, I think the nature of failures discussed means they would likely affect both roles.
I think there's every possibility that a present-day AI allowed to act as CEO would make mediocre choices for some period and then decide that it was a character in a scifi novel selling bespoke space-yachts to comet-mining magnates.
Esophagus4
I guess you could make the argument that we haven't proven AI can't do a CEO's job until we test it... it would make an interesting experiment, at least.
But it also kind of reminds me of the DAO hype a few years ago where people suggested decentralized, blockchain-based organizations could be the org structure of the future. (Not realizing that they were just putting a co-op on a blockchain :) )
Now that I think about it, I do hope someone tests this theory out. It would be very interesting to see. You could probably start by saying "You are the CEO of a lemonade stand. Your goal is to maximize revenue while [constraints]..."
fennecbutt
Because it's impossible. CEOs are rooted in place not for skill but because of a web of social connections and class divide.
tracker1
It's entirely possible... In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are more than a few very wealthy people willing to place bets on that very thing... maybe not everything, but upwards of 1-3% of their wealth.
Now, actually getting in a room and talking to those people and getting in on the execution of that idea... that's a different story.
protocolture
>No one’s networking is worth hundreds of millions.
I was with you until here. Honestly, some networking is actually just that good. I dont believe this to be the case universally, but some people can connect people so efficiently that its mind blowing.
>A reasonable approach is to cap CEO salaries at $2-5M
Why is this reasonable?
crote
The real question is whether their networking has a value of hundreds of millions to the company, or to the CEO: are they getting hired because those networking skills are genuinely providing a huge value to the company, or are they getting hired because they are so good at networking that they can fool a company into hiring them instead of someone else capable of providing virtually the same value at a far lower salary?
> Why is [a CEO salary cap at $2-5M] reasonable?
Why not? It's enough to live a very comfortable life. If you want to, you can retire after a single-digit number of years. Anyone who needs more money clearly has a serious spending problem and shouldn't be anywhere near your company's finances.
And the whole "but look how much money they are making/saving the company" argument you usually hear is bullshit as well. I bet there are plenty of mid-level FAANG engineers who have saved their company literally tens of millions of dollars a year by optimizing some code, but they don't get those obscene salaries either.
It gets even worse once you take into account the bottom rungs on the ladder: paying the CEO tens or hundreds of millions a year would be a lot less problematic if that very same company didn't have workers literally peeing in bottles, having to work around the body of their dead coworker, or having the building literally collapse on their head.
bigbadfeline
> but some people can connect people so efficiently that its mind blowing.
People don't connect people, money do. It's the golden rule and more...
> Why is this reasonable?
Because that's where work stops and corruption starts. Anyone who's seen companies prepared for acquisitions by board-installed, "connected" outsiders, knows that side of the story. Or companies sank on purpose by the same method.
tracker1
I always thought a cap of 100x the lowest paid employee as a raise all boats kind of thing. That said, I think stretch goals with generous monetary incentives should always be possible. If someone increases the value of a company by $10b, I'm not going to be upset if they make $100m, assuming they aren't doing anything shady, immoral or illegal.
piva00
What would that cap do then? It's almost like that right now, most executive compensation comes from stock packages.
Distribute that across all employees as well, relative to their position, just like any profit-sharing system should work: all workers were part of increasing value, without them no CEO/C-level would generate any value.
Doesn't management always want loyal people? That's how you make people loyal, paying them for what they achieved, having a stake in the company's future.
giantg2
"Honestly, some networking is actually just that good."
Only if we include corruption. Any deal that takes special consider is arguably corrupt.
protocolture
How do you figure?
Like theres plenty of information thats not public, but isnt confidential either. Accessing that information can be exceptionally lucrative. Now if that information is used to trade publicly traded shares, that can be criminal (the ethics of the situation are another matter) but if you were to instead, provide product or service on that basis, you are in fact just a well connected salesman. Not everything that doesn't go to a public tender is corruption.
yieldcrv
right, I would say more people could be compensated more directly with the company’s performance, revenue, and market tolerance of the shares
as opposed to saying CEO’s should be compensated less
a muuuuch greater amount of dilution would come with that though, I’m for it
Esophagus4
It also could probably incentivize some unintended behaviors like clever financial engineering for short term stock gains at the cost of long term company health.
It could (??) also lead to comp going up for CEOs, as I imagine (??) they would demand more in stock because stock is riskier than cash.
semiinfinitely
> I am confused why CEO salaries are still so high when AI can do most of their work?
maybe thats why you're not a CEO
mothballed
Having gotten to know several CEOs I have come to the conclusion there is no good way to identify if someone is capable of being a CEO other than having personal connections to investors.
shermantanktop
Inverting that makes an interesting test of CEO potential: "if you can understand why CEO salaries are so high, you may be CEO material!"
tracker1
Ideally, it's similar to any commissioned sales position, just with larger numbers as it's based on the performance of the company as a whole not just one set of sales connections. The more you increase the overall value of the company, the more you get. You increase the value of the company by $10B, your commission of 1-5% is $100-500m in stock, so even your wealth is tied to the success of the company.
IMO, the role of government this is to establish societal baselines in terms of criminality of certain actions and to ensure a baseline of competition. Actually acting on the former and the latter... the former by affecting the financial wealth of executives and board members when a company's neglegence harms society. The latter by not giving outsized govt contracts to a single provider for anything and to establish that if there are restrictions (medication, for example( that multiple providers/manufacturers must be present in the market, and that a certain portion is produced domestically (for security).
roommin
This one is a great read because it's true whether or not you value CEOs!
nostrademons
The point of high CEO salaries is to align their incentives with the board and shareholders (the people paying them), so that when they are faced with the decision of losing their job vs. fucking over the tens of thousands of people working with them to increase shareholder value, they choose to fuck over the people working with them. Most people would not normally make that choice; it takes a few tens of millions in stock options before someone might contemplate it.
ergocoder
> I’d even say it’s a fiduciary duty to act on this sooner rather than later.
You said it like nobody hasn't attempted it. Many people are trying to solve this. They've replaced small mechanical works like scheduling meetings and reaching out already.
The majority of CEO job is excellent judgement and motivating people. It's difficult to replace that function.
A lot of CEOs are founders and owners. You can bet they want the business to run by itself, so it would free up their time to go do something else. That's the dream. You do realize that these people will earn regardless who runs the business, right? because they are significant shareholders. In a way, you wish for CEOs/founders to be much much much richer.
tester756
But why are you caring about how much private companies pay to their CEOs?
roommin
Massive wealth inequality is a societal problem.
gambiting
Because in some companies the CEO compensation is a significant portion of the expenses so obviously cutting it would free up cashflow to do other things - but also on a simple human level hearing about yet another CEO getting tens or hundreds of millions in compensation while they announce how sad they are they have to let go 10% of their workforce is just simply gross. I think even in private companies you are allowed to care when this happens, and voice your displeasure with this clearly visible idiocy of the situation.
bpodgursky
When your observation is that the entire financial world is being irrational and you have an obvious solution, many thoughtful people would reflect upon their own priors.
Arainach
The same financial world whose rationality has led companies[1][3] and economies[2] to ruin over and over?
Rational doesn't mean sustainable or wise.
[1]: https://bhc3.com/2009/05/11/when-being-rational-kills-your-b...
roommin
It isn't irrational if you frame it as people with power aligning with the choices that reward them with power.
itake
- CEO salaries are usually quite low as their compensation is mostly stock, not cash.
- CEO salaries, even when they are high, are still a drop in the ocean compared to the company’s revenue or profits.
- Elon Musk and the CEO of Starbucks have very famously been able to boost stocks just by existing…
nixpulvis
This is wild to me. For the vast majority of businesses, AI is not the primary product. The message from the CEO should be: "we are welcome to, and will support you in developing AI solution if they can be proven to provide value to the key metrics and missions of the company". I wouldn't honestly expect most CEOs to be in the position to make the risk/reward evaluation, so I'd be pushing this down on people who knew more about it and who were willing to risk their careers on it. The CEOs should be protecting the quality of their brands and products.
fennecbutt
Pssssh. CEOs have the luxury of not having to worry about that sort of thing. And that fact is proved time and time again.
Even if your buddies don't get you into a cushy position, a multi million salary for a decade or so sets you up. No tears shed.
denkmoon
You're not thinking about the millions more they could have. These people don't want some of the money, they want all of the money.
babypuncher
Of course, but it's easy for them to give into that when the worst possible consequence for royally screwing up is a comfortable early retirement.
HumblyTossed
100% of them don't care that AI is costing OTHER people their jobs.
ludicrousdispla
I wonder if the remaining 26% worry that AI successes will cost them their jobs.
null
its-kostya
> 74% of CEOs fear losing their jobs within two years if they fail to deliver AI-driven results...
so... "within 2 years" appears to be the runway for which we can expect a more conclusive verdict on AI investment?
kevin_thibedeau
They should hedge their bets with blockchain and update their golden parachutes.
more_corn
There is a winning move. That’s not to play the game.
AI automation is a high risk and the rewards are questionable at best.
Nobody ever got fired for running a profitable business with real employees, creating value for their customers and executing well. Note the word AI is NOWHERE in that sentence.
add-sub-mul-div
Ironic, I've been thinking of AI-chasing CEOs as NPCs. But in this case as you point out, not playing the game is the more original move.
kubb
What are they worried for? They have severance packages.
shmerl
They shouldn't be shoving AI on everyone then to appease investors who got overhyped about it. Otherwise they reap what they sow.
khannn
CEOs: AI TOOK MY JERB
Most companies have no idea what exactly AI is or what it does.
My company just spend months on several AI initiatives. They created several power point presentations about how we can use AI to automate all of the teams repetitive tasks. Our senior leadership didn't even know that we've been doing automation for almost ten years now.
They think automation IS AI.