The AI delusion of The New York Times
One would consider The New York Times as a source of accurate information, balanced reporting, or, perhaps, great games — like Wordle — to kill time and distract you from your regular office job.
But then, you come across a strange article like If A.I. Can Do Your Job, Maybe It Can Also Replace Your C.E.O., and you question who's in charge of the content there.
The premise of the article is that if any employee could be replaced by AI, it should also mean that the CEO can be replaced. The author then collects stories to fit the narrative.
Here are the examples:
“In struggling companies, you’ll be replacing operational management first but probably keep a few humans to think beyond the machines,” said Saul J. Berman, a former senior consulting partner with IBM. Overall, he said, “the change delivered by A.I. in corporations will be as great or greater at the higher strategic levels of management as the lower ranks.”
Based on a survey of CEOs and other executives, The Times reported, 'Nearly half — 47 percent — of the executives surveyed said they believed “most” or “all” of the chief executive role should be completely automated or replaced by A.I.'
'That includes writing, synthesizing, exhorting the employees. More subtly, A.I. — if it reaches any of the levels its salespeople are promising — will democratize the job of top management even while scaling it back.’
'Polish rum company Dictador announced in November that it had an A.I. humanoid C.E.O., Mika. She proclaimed on LinkedIn that she was “devoid of personal bias, ensuring unbiased and strategic choices that prioritize the organization’s best interests.”'
The above excerpts reveal the following recurrent patterns. A non-existent or vague definition of the term 'AI' leads to nonsensical speculations, which one can find in bad sci-fi literature or government reports. The second narrative is the anthropomorphization of technology, which can be explained as mental loneliness of its proponents or a desire to be whipped into submission.
Do you really think that struggling companies can be saved by AI?
Reading this sentence '... democratize the job of top management even while scaling it back ...', I can't even comprehend what it means?! Since AI will run the show, will people vote once a week to pick a loser who will have to sit in a big office, behind a fancy desk to do what? Or is it the AI which will pick its right hand?
I can definitely see why the majority of CEOs in the survey said, ‘Yes,’ when asked if having AI to help with the job would be a great idea. After listening to another complaint or dealing with another inconsequential decision, a business executive may think, 'A monkey should be able to do this.'
The rum-infused AI should only be considered a marketing stunt. If not, then the statement, 'Devoid of personal bias, ensuring unbiased and strategic choices that prioritize the organization’s best interests,' should be a wake up call for all the lunatics who think that an AI CEO is a good idea. Because nowhere in that sentence is there any mention of ‘people,’ as in ‘humans.’ The word 'psychopath' would quickly become a trending term in Google searches.
I fault the author of this article and the publication that, under the umbrella of quality journalism, are delivering absolute nonsense to its audience. It is not an opinion piece. It is supposed to be an article which debunks the ridiculous statements and provides readers with a critical view of the technology.
The recurrent pattern? Whatever you think that AI is, it is not the danger. People writing these articles are. Shame on you people at The New York Times.