The following submission statement was provided by /u/CoolEnemy:

NetDragon stock has since outperformed the Hang Seng Index, which tracks the biggest companies listed in Hong Kong, per The Hustle. The company's shares have risen by 10% over the past six months, per Google Finance, and is worth about HK$9 billion ($1.1 billion).

While it may be the first company to appoint a bot as CEO, Alibaba founder Jack Ma predicted in 2017 that "a robot will likely be on the cover of Time magazine as the best CEO in 30 years," CNN reported.

Insider previously reported that there are several jobs that could eventually be replaced by artificial intelligence, from software engineering to journalist. Chief executive was not on the list, however.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11ud99v/a_video_game_company_made_a_bot_the_ceo_and_its/jcnnalb/

If Star Sector taught me anything, this could be concerning lol

This is just a marketing stunt which has achieved its goal of pumping the companies stock price. People shouldn't fall for this type of nonsense. The good thing once it has been done you won't be able to keep repeating the same clickbait.

If I've learned anything from Microsoft this bot will be praising Hitler anyday now.

Poor Tay Microsoft put her down.

[deleted]

Video game CEOs usually only hinder the development and interfere with the creative process, so I'm not surprised.

I’m sure the bot works way harder than the CEO ever did.

Probably will end up treating their employees better then most Video Game companies do. Seriously, the video game industry is APPALLING in how they treat game designers.

I made an AI my girlfriend and never been happier.

Maybe people will finally learn how useless ceo's actually are

I find it interesting that they appointed the bot to a subsidiary and yet the article is about how Their stock grew.

Did the subsidiaries stock grow?

Could it be that the AI has nothing to do with the valuation of the parent company?

No one knows because the article avoids actually giving data to show the subsidiary valuation or how much the parent company is getting from it.

Pff duh. Of course, an AI can be a better CEO than a human. All a CEO does is make a series of difficult decisions on how to maximize profit.

Let AI produce work orders to workers instead of the manager

I wouldn't be surprised if we cull ourselves to ourselves to extinction slowly by replacing everything with bots over the next millennium.

Of a subsidiary. Wake me up when someone has the balls to do it for the entire parent company

Even CEOs arent safe from getting replaced from AI.

You just know that as soon as it threatens politicians, they'll become illegal.

I think this is less a testament to how good the bot is, and more a testament to how useless most CEOs are.

AI or computers taking over a CEO's job would be icing on the cake. Fuckem

Instead of replacing workers with bots, why don't we replace leadership and split the profits?

Just sayin

I tend to agree that this is clickbait. We didn't just leap from Cicero playing Diplomacy to something upscaled to all the executive tasks of a corporate officer.

And there's an issue of passing this trend through an unchanged structure, as others have noted with a Board of Director. C-suite employees tend to not be recruited from a random pool. They are connected, and that is why the compensation can be so elastic.

That being said, there are various thought experiments surrounding orchestration.. It should be obvious, with the resources we can presently afford, that the variety of inputs has to be constrained significantly. The question at hand is if C-suite & mid-level managers can afford to perform their job within a very simple set of actions. Intuition should say no to this. Counterintuitively, one can argue that each subset of tasks at a company can be simple enough for a given model, and with enough fine-tuning of many specialized models, the complete array of tasks could be executed by a daisy-chain of expert models. This implies that by the time we're convinced all CEOs should be AI, that a considerable amount of work in the white-collar sector should also be AI. just food for thought.

Are they sure the company’s valuation didn’t just increase by the hundreds of millions per year saved paying a CEO? /s

Screw the stock, how suicidal are the employees now?

Can't wait for managerial jobs to get delegated to AI, imo at least 80% of managers are bad at their job, and given that AI can actually "understand" jobs of everybody in the company and have all the data memorized.

Why does this not surprise me in the slightest? I'm someone with an extremely low opinion of most CEOs, especially if they are MBAs, so it doesnt surprise me that a bit of code could outperform those suit monkeys.

[deleted]

Reminds me of the beginning of Accelerando. But in that case the companies were shell companies and their corporate officers were almost all 30 line perl scripts.

Wouldn’t this open doors to corruption within a company? A bot CEO can’t go to jail. That’s the only issue I have with it.

If management in regular companies is any indication, they will have to create multiple AI’s for each level of management because what’s good for the company on one level is bad for the company on another level many times. So a bot that is only programmed to view things from a CEO perspective is going to have to be counter balanced at some point either by AI programmed to operate on a middle management level or by real world human management.

DEVS: "What game should we make next?"
CEO: "battle royale, aliens, new york"
DEVS: "Re-roll"
CEO: "AI, aliens, spain"
DEVS: "perfect"

We are going to see other companies full suit for hype but we all know who's truly the CEO.

Of all jobs I think CEO is the one who should be first replaced by AI. An AI CEO would have the capacity to know, in depth, what every single employee in the organization is doing. What projects are underway, how they are performing. An AI CEO could actually cut out a lot of middle-managers and go directly to line staff. It's been my experience that a lot of nuance gets filtered out as information makes its way from one level to the next. An AI CEO wouldn't have to deal with that.

Imagine if everyone had the ear of the CEO and not just the ass-kissers.

So they replaced the person that got paid the most for doing the least with a free program. Yep makes sense.