>One of the main functions of leaders (should be) is to assume responsibility for decisions and outcomes. A computer cant do that.

Sure it can. "Assuming responsibility" just means people/the law lets you to.

It can be totally empty too, like CEOs or politicians "assuming responsibility" for some outcome but nevertheless suffering zero conseuences.

Someone in power doesn’t get to choose - the board of directors do. Who’s job is to act in the best interest of shareholders.

Firms tend to follow peers in an industry - once one blinks the rest follow.

The board of directors are also people in power - why not replace them with an LLM as well if it works so well for CEOs?

> Someone in power doesn’t get to choose - the board of directors do. Who’s job is to act in the best interest of shareholders.

Alas, shareholder value is a great ideal, but it tends to be honoured in practice rather less strictly.

As you can also see when sudden competition leads to rounds of efficiency improvements, cost cutting and product enhancements: even without competition, a penny saved is a penny earned for shareholders. But only when fierce competition threatens to put managers' jobs at risk, do they really kick into overdrive.

>shareholder value is a great ideal

It's one of the most horrible ideas ever, responsible for anything from market abuse and enshittification to rent seeking and patent trolling.

> Someone in power doesn’t get to choose - the board of directors do

Since the board of directors can decide to replace the CEO, it's not the CEO who holds the (ultimate) power, it's the board of directors.

Since the majority shareholder(s) can decide to replace the board of directors, it’s not the board of directors who holds the (ultimate) power, it’s the majority shareholder(s).

Indeed, and there we reached the end of the chain.