Genuine question: am I missing some sarcasm here? When you say a CEO has to "talk to people", and then say it can't be done by a chat bot. That's literally the only thing a chat bot can do.
Every person all the way down the chain thinks everyone else can be replaced by AI, but have some good reason that they themselves (or their role) can’t be.
Personally I think that almost any role can be augmented by AI, but very few can be outright replaced that we’re not already very close to an RPA bot replacing them anyway.
Then you consider that they might be able to reduce headcount because of productivity increases. But why wouldn’t they want to use the budget they already have for these newly more productive people and get even more work done overall?
There are some exceptions, like maybe you can be entirely rid of some L1 support.
> But why wouldn’t they want to use the budget they already have for these newly more productive people and get even more work done overall?
For all the same reasons many companies are eager to cut labor costs whenever possible. There can be a variety of bottlenecks to scaling and it's often not as simple as hire more people to make more profit, even if you have extra capital available.
Especially in investor relationships and customer relationships, the talking itself is often not the important part. Yes, you need to align on terms and goals. But the interpersonal component is arguably more important. You need to project that you are a trustworthy partner with compatible goals. And being present as the CEO (or other manager) also shows a resource investment into the future partnership. Your time is valuable, and you took some of that time and dedicated it to this meeting. A chatbot can't do that
What you're referring to is "talking at" people. But "talking to" people usually involves more than just moving your mouth (which chat bots can't, btw).
