> I feel like the people who can't comprehend the difficulties of an AI <thing doer> are people who have never <tried to do that thing really well>.

That applies to every call to replace jobs with current-gen AI.

But I can't think of a difference between CEOs and other professions that works out in favor of keeping the CEOs over the rest.

You sound like a CEO desperately trying not to get fired.

Everyone is indispensable until they aren't.

This whole thread is delightful. Well done.

Alas, this doesn't answer the question I posed.

CEOs are a different class of worker, with a different set of customers, a smaller pool of workers. They operate with a different set of rules than music creation or coding, and they sit at the top of the economy. They will use AI as a tool. Someone will sit at the top of a company. What would you call them?

>You can't think of a single difference in the nature of the job of artist/musician vs. lawyer vs. business executive?

I can think of plenty, but none that matter.

As the AI stans say, there is nothing special about being human. What is a "CEO?" Just a closed system of inputs and outputs, stimulus and response, encased in wetware. A physical system that like all physical systems can be automated and will be automated in time.

My assertion is that it's a small club of incredibly powerful people operating in a system of very human rules - not well defined structures like programming, or to a lesser extent, law.

The market they serve is themselves and powerful shareholders. They don't serve finicky consumers that have dozens of low-friction alternatives, like they do in AI slop Youtube videos, or logo generation for their new business.

A human at some point is at the top of the pyramid. Will CEOs be finding the best way to use AI to serve their agenda? They'd be foolish not to. But if you "replace the CEO", then the person below that is effectively the CEO.