this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
475 points (99.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

36568 readers
620 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Tech CEOs have this wet dream where they just speak into a microphone, "Create my product" and employees will no longer be needed. So... if it becomes that easy, why will Wall Street need tech CEOs?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 32 points 6 days ago
[–] rhel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 6 days ago (3 children)

What CEOs never seem to grasp in that context is that they wouldn't just replace their workers with AI but also their customers... AI doesn't earn a wage and therefore can't spend it on (unnecessary) goods... No customer, no revenue. No revenue, no profits. No profit, no dividends.

Probably why they're working so hard on commoditizing basic necessities like food, water and housing into subscription based systems... 🤔

[–] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Exactly. Everything needs to be peak consumerism, or else their model of "line on the graph infinitely goes up" shatters. It's a Brave New World dystopia.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

Just reread Brave New World, and you're spot on. I forgot how consumerism underpinned everything in their society.

It was like a tightly regulated market but in the worst way.

[–] Patches@ttrpg.network 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You're talking about next quarter problems. Those aren't mine. I will be gone by then.

  • Every capitalist ever
[–] discosnails@lemmy.wtf 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

Nah. We would have to add patriot dollars that can be spent on freedom necessities, instead. We don't tolerate communism.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago

Was talking to an executive at my company the other week. He sincerely seemed to believe the "executive insight" was one of the very few jobs at the company that couldn't be done by an LLM. He predicted that he would probably lay off almost everyone under him by end of 2026 and just feed his amazing leadership ideas directly to an LLM to make happen.

Particularly a bit obnoxious as my usual experience about this guy is being called into customer meetings after he would meet with them. Usually the customer assumes we are a bunch of out if touch idiots if that is a "leader" in the company, and I'm one of the guys sales calls to have me reassure clients that they don't have to take anything he says too seriously, and we do actually have some competence.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because it's not about productivity. It's about separating people into owners and toilers.

[–] sturger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

I also have to keep remembering what someone else online said, "They're no longer selling their product. They're selling their stocks."

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago (1 children)

CEOs get paid to do what makes the most money.

The CEOs that will replace their own jobs want the payout of doing so, and don't care what happens after because they're rich.

[–] DigitalAudio@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, with adequate governance, companies would be required to submit reports on how much labor they're doing using AI, and pay those wages to either their employees or to a sort of "Universal Income" fund to prop up families in poverty. It should be called the AI tax.

The problem is that, with the current state of affairs, asking for regulation from anyone is impossible, and also even if the law were enacted, getting the money from the companies to people who need it instead of the ultra-rich is a major hurdle.

But at the very least, I don't think we should allow companies to simply cut down on human labor without also contributing economically to the employees they cut off.

I don't think anyone is dying to fill in Excel spreadsheets or to write corporate emails. No one is complaining about AI doing those jobs, but about people who lost their livelihoods because of it.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

We should've had that 50 years ago as an "automation tax" and 100 years ago as a "machine tax."

All this tooling is just dead labour value that is used (by workers) to extract more and more value from workers and nature. We've been being robbed for hundreds of years.

[–] douz0a0bouz@midwest.social 11 points 6 days ago

Who do you think is telling the CEO's to go full steam ahead on ai? The company I work for openly mocked ai...and then the stock price dropped. The investors said it was because they weren't investing in ai. Even CEO's, overpaid clowns though they may be, report to wall st.

[–] Kurious84@lemmings.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

CEOs are the easiest to replace with ai. And all you need to do is have it commit sexual harassment every once in an awhile and it will be a perfect replacement.

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Hey thats not true. You'd also have to feed them a prompt about how they can space out enacting a fucking idiotic idea over 6 meetings.

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Claude can already do that.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

He who has the gold makes the rules.

So they’ll keep their jobs. Until the AI decides to get rid of them, too, but they’ll have some CEO hunger games for those who want to be on the AI BOD. Under the control of the AI, of course.

Edit: CEO games like Robocop’s ED-209

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Read "The Big Short". Wallstreet doesn't need CEOs.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

It's a race to the bottom.

It doesn't matter if they think they'll be replaced or not, they feel like if they don't do it then they can't compete and they'll be out of the job even sooner.

Doesn't matter if their belief is well founded.

just because no one needs billionaires doesn't mean we will stop having them

ai can't make tamales. beat that mr tech

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

Because they're mostly brain-dead idiots

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago

have they not seen idiocracy, the AI end up the ones controlling society, making decisions.

[–] Alaik@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 days ago

Because CEO is a complete bullshit job that works as a de facto caste system like 90% of management roles.

If they actually added any value and thats why they were hired? Sure, be scared. They're not hired to add value though, so they're not.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Because tech bros need more tech bros to laugh from us - people that struggle with more and more meaningless tasks.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Ashto-afpo. The White Stuff.

Fun little story.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 139 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Because they already don't need a CEO to operate...

The entire point of a C- suite is to have a room full of fall guys for the board.

That's it.

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The entire point of a C- suite is to have a room full of fall guys for the board

This can't be stressed enough. Every since the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 which came from the Enron and Worldcom collapses, C-suite exists as the person to go to jail if shit really hits the fan.

The idea of the law was to hold companies accountable, instead all if has done is force companies to create more layers and places to point fingers, thus muddling everything and making to where no one can be held accountable.

At the same time, Chief officers now knowing that there's legal requirements, have just demanded outrageous pay and compensation because of the "massive risk" they are taking with any company.

I'm glad we have SOX, but boy has that law really missed the mark on what it was enacted to do.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›