See now this is interesting. I believe there is a difference between bad decisions and illegal decisions and what individuals can be held liable for. As long as a company using this “CEO ai can demonstrate reasonable frameworks were in place around the decisions it was acting upon, such as “hmm maybe we won’t eat the first born child of every customer or let’s not spend the companies full cash reserves on crack”, I think there are protections from liability.
I believe the corporation itself is treated as a distinct legal entity for litigation purposes and shields officers of the company unless there are specific circumstances around any individual. I don’t think there is a legal requirement for a corporation to have a CEO. I think this just further confirms the idea of the CEO “role” being fully automated to be more than viable and a genuine costs savings. Much lower risk than relying on AI to replace skilled technical functions.
Someone with more corporate legal knowledge could provide further insight.
I see no reason US based AI companies would not carry the same risk especially with the well documented cases of groups like the NSA openly asking US technology companies to provide back doors.
This simply came out of me challenging the assertion in a comment higher up stating that a company still needed a CEO/person to be held liable for what the LLM could do. I didn’t think it was that black and white.