Could computers take over the boardroom?
Sure Sure. You want to say that all work that produces physical objects is "easy" and that computers are naturally superior to man at software if they gain any level of "intelligence".
Okay.
Computers from the ground up were originally built as information and control systems. Management.
So why are workers replaceable but management would not be?
Executives, bankers, and "charismatic" CEOs are far more replaceable than skilled workers.
''iCEO, a software prototype designed to test whether high-level management can be automated, was launched recently with encouraging initial results. In a 2015 article in Harvard Business Review, Devin Fidler of the non-profit group Institute for the Future outlined what iCEO can teach us about the future of the job world, and specifically, the future of the management structure in the corporate world.
On a base level, the virtual management system automates complex work by dividing it up and assigning out small individual tasks. The creators of the program decided to run experiments to see how far the software could be pushed into traditionally human territory. In the first real test of the software program’s higher-level abilities, iCEO oversaw the completion of a 124-page report in just weeks, when it would have taken months via a traditional management-employee structure.
The quality of iCEO’s work was as impressive as its speed, and the computer program required little human intervention to get the job done. While the software is still rudimentary, in a year or two, the technology could likely be applied to a number of industries. iCEO has already dabbled in sales, quality assurance, and hiring. It’s also capable of operating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk micro-work platform, which many corporations already use. When it comes to management, however, many corporate executives fancy themselves immune to the robot takeover. Fidler claims they have a rude awakening coming.
“Executives tend to assume that their underlings will bear the main brunt of changes to the future of work, while their own positions are immune. They are incorrect,” Fidler writes. “The same cost/benefit analyses performed by shareholders against line workers and office managers will soon be applied to executives and their generous salaries.”''
Whether we start seeing managers and executives disappearing or merely shifting and sharing their duties, the reality of coming change can’t be ignored. In the corporate world, the evolution of technology in the workplace will be especially interesting, as CEOs and other high-powered executives will increasingly be forced to justify their worth…
https://archive.is/Wp7wx
One highly visible foray into automated management has upset workers and caused one company to take a public-relations beating. Starbucks employs a widely-used software program that examines sales patterns and other data to determine scheduling of its baristas. The practice was thrown into harsh light in a lengthy New York Times feature that documented the consequences of an algorithm-dictated schedule on flesh-and-blood workers. Such computer programs do not take into account how unpredictable hours may or may not mesh with the needs of workers who must account for child care and other domestic obligations. Starbucks said it gives baristas a week’s notice of their hours, but the Times found few instances of that happening.
The article drew hundreds of responses—from workers in big-box retail, grocery chains, banks, medical facilities and a major art museum—who complained that computerized scheduling systems had left their lives a time-management hell. “This automated software removes the human equation,”wrote a Lowe’s worker from Woodbury, N.J. “This system has massively strained my family life and has had a hand in ruining relationships. And to add insult to injury, the schedule barely receives a passing glance by management.”
Another recent study, by the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg also found humans willing to take orders from computers, but much less readily than from other humans. Participants were asked to perform a menial task (renaming computer files) for 80 minutes, and a computer named “Nao” was able to exert enough authority to keep 46% of participants on task for the full 80 minutes even as they voiced a desire to quit. Humans were almost twice as likely —86%—to obey another human, in this case an actor in a white lab coat. Still, researchers were struck that “even after trying to avoid the task or engaging in arguments with the robot, participants still (often reluctantly) obeyed its commands. These findings highlight that robots can indeed pressure people to do things they would rather not do.…”
https://archive.is/Th8us
Robot Portfolio managers:
https://archive.is/WAmNg