# 认为人工智能会取代员工的首席执行官，不过是些不称职的首席执行官

- 来源：Hacker News 热门（buzzing.cc 中文翻译）
- 作者：speckx
- 发布时间：2026-06-10 04:58
- AIHOT 分数：55
- AIHOT 链接：https://aihot.virxact.com/items/cmq74v13800b8sloph7akhtfy
- 原文链接：https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/09/ceos-who-think-ai-replaces-their-employees-are-just-bad-ceos

## AI 摘要

那些认为人工智能会取代员工的首席执行官，本质上是不称职的领导者。这种观点忽视了AI作为辅助工具提升员工效率的潜力。

## 正文

While I enjoy watching CEOs pratfall, I do think there’s some things that are still worrisome.

The power of LLMs is that when used well and used willingly it can help employees to get more done, but that doesn’t mean you need fewer humans. You need more humans who know how to work productively.

The power of LLMs is that when used well and used willingly it can help employees to get more done, but that doesn’t mean you need fewer humans. You need more humans who know how to work productively.

You can need more humans who know how to work productively, while still ending up with less humans overall. If you have a set amount of work, if you make people more productive, you will need less people overall, generally speaking. There can be exceptions, like if something (like review) is a hard bottleneck, but not everything will be.

The issue CEOs are running into is overcorrecting and thinking that means you don’t need any people. But if it took you 100 employees with 25 of them reviewing to get something done before, it might only take you say, 75 now with 35 of them reviewing to get it up to snuff. But you’re still down 25 jobs, net. There are going to be a lot of jobs that won’t need 100 reviewers- that’s the point of increased productivity. (numbers are just for example).

The main question is if there’s induced demand- either the same 100 employees can get more done out of the same inputs, or it allows them to expand into new things they couldn’t do before. We don’t yet know how much of that there will be.

The biggest thing is that this should be a warning- CEOs want to replace your jobs, and will if they can. Labor needs to start locking in concessions now, while they have bargaining power. We also need to keep an eye on the rate of improvement- while they still need review, even compared to a year ago, they need much less of it.

Somewhat separately from all of the above, not all skillsets are transferable- the skillset that made someone a good code monkey in the past doesn’t necessarily translate to being a good reviewer, which tends to be more like a manager role. That will lead to some pain all on it’s own.