894
Terrified Tech Execs Are Traveling With Armed Bodyguards as AI Backlash Grows (www.yahoo.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Ok, let's say a ceo objects to the boards instructions. They'll fire that CEO and hire another one that'll listen. The problem persists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Then it would be the new CEO's duty to likewise object to unethical instructions.

    Mind, I'm not saying the board shouldn't be held responsible. I'm saying the CEO is still complicit, even if he's "just following orders".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent