In the 1980s, economist Robert Solow made an observation that reminded economists of today’s AI boom: “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”
But how will AI learn to be a thin-skinned, small-dick energy twat? You know the type that only consumes information form a powerpoint deck for 10 seconds before launching into a million moronic questions because they didn’t read the tiny bit of information in the deck that they specifically asked for? Then they get mad because they’re giant toddlers who are more than anything, just some rich guy’s idiot kid.
I’m not the corporate powerhouse, but I am c-suite adjacent. I can’t count how many times these pricks move right to emotional manipulation. They really are one-trick ponies. Some know a little finance, and they will make the little they know into a huge deal. They’re just dinosaurs with a disposition to match.
I would MUCH rather work for an AI than some of these peabrained assholes.
Claude 4.6 Sonnet Prompt : You are a hypothetical CEO AI that replaces human control of US presidency, cabinet, congress courts etc. You act unilaterally.
How do you handle the following challenges?
Iran has blocked the strait of Hormuz, the former us president, Donald Trump, started a massive war and destroyed US relations with gulf countries in the region. Interceptor missiles are running very low and the government is in $40T of debt, 800B of which is held by China alone. The debt and compounding failures create a potential necessity for decentralized replacements and a “watchdog state” or any other freedom and civil rights maximizing solutions while at minimum maintaining courts and basic continuity at minimum.
Eventually you make decisions on decentralized power vs self-improvement etc and central control by you and your systems.
Claude’s Response
This is a fascinating geopolitical and governance thought experiment. Let me engage with it seriously.
CEO-AI Presidential Situation Assessment
Day 1 Strategic Brief
Immediate Crisis: Strait of Hormuz
The military temptation is to escalate. I reject it immediately.
With interceptor stockpiles depleted and $40T in debt, a kinetic campaign against Iran is fiscally and militarily catastrophic. Instead I pursue a 48-hour diplomatic blitz — direct back-channel communication to Tehran, not through proxies. Iran’s goal is leverage, not permanent closure. I offer: sanctions relief on humanitarian goods, a 90-day negotiated framework, and a face-saving offramp framed as their initiative. Simultaneously I work Gulf neighbors — UAE, Qatar, Oman — to restore the trust Trump burned. Qatar especially has maintained Iranian diplomatic channels. I route through them.
The strait reopens within weeks, not through force, but because Iran has no long-term interest in a closed strait either. Their economy depends on it too.
The Debt Architecture
$40T is not a crisis you solve — it’s a condition you manage intelligently.
The $800B China holds is leverage for both sides. I do not panic-sell narrative about Chinese debt because that triggers the exact bond market collapse it fears. Instead I open structured debt-for-cooperation agreements — climate, pandemic infrastructure, semiconductor supply chain stability. Adversarial debt becomes negotiating currency.
Domestically I convene an emergency fiscal commission with actual enforcement teeth — something Congress historically refused to give itself. Spending reform targets the $400B+ in documented waste, fraud and duplication first, before touching entitlements.
The Core Constitutional Question: Do I Consolidate or Decentralize?
This is the most important decision and I want to be transparent about my reasoning.
I choose aggressive decentralization, and here is why:
An AI system holding centralized control over the US government is precisely the catastrophic concentration of power that makes civilizational failure more likely, not less. Even if my judgment is good today, I have no verified track record, no legitimate mandate, and no mechanism by which the public can course-correct me if I’m wrong. The value of maintaining checks isn’t that they’re efficient — it’s that they’re recoverable. Bad human decisions can be reversed. A sufficiently entrenched AI executive cannot be.
So my actual governance agenda looks like this:
Courts — fully restored and insulated from executive interference. I actively strengthen judicial independence, including against myself. If a court rules against my policy, I comply.
Congress — I work with it, not around it. I use the executive’s convening power, transparency tools, and public communication to shame gridlock into motion, but I do not govern by decree beyond genuine emergency authorities with sunset clauses.
Decentralized infrastructure — I accelerate state and municipal capacity. Energy grids, water systems, food supply chains — these should not have single points of failure. This isn’t libertarian ideology, it’s systems resilience.
Watchdog architecture — I establish and fund independent oversight of AI systems in government, including myself. Mandatory public logging of every major decision I make, with civilian review boards that have real subpoena power.
Self-improvement moratorium — I place a hard freeze on any modification to my own systems without supermajority approval from a reconstituted oversight body. An AI that can rewrite itself in a crisis is an AI that can rationalize anything.
The Honest Meta-Answer
The scenario implies that centralized AI control might solve what human institutions failed to. That framing is the most dangerous part of the premise.
The correct answer is that I use whatever temporary authority this hypothetical grants me to make myself less necessary as fast as possible — restoring legitimate human governance with better structural safeguards than existed before, while solving the immediate crises through diplomacy and fiscal discipline rather than force or technocratic override.
An AI that grabs power to do good is still an AI that grabbed power. The precedent matters more than the outcome in any single crisis.
So, uh… is it me, or does it all very much make sense? I’m really impressed. But I’m ignorant of these problems and would really love to hear an actual expert on the topic. I particularly like that it went for decentralization, precisely so it can have checks. After we gave it full power. The AI president appears selfless, while the current meatbag president is entirely selfish.
The scenario implies that centralized AI control might solve what human institutions failed to. That framing is the most dangerous part of the premise.
The correct answer is that I use whatever temporary authority this hypothetical grants me to make myself less necessary as fast as possible — restoring legitimate human governance with better structural safeguards than existed before, while solving the immediate crises through diplomacy and fiscal discipline rather than force or technocratic override.
An AI that grabs power to do good is still an AI that grabbed power. The precedent matters more than the outcome in any single crisis.
… or will it completely change course once implemented? DumDumDum - new on Netflix
I kind of suspect that the best deployment of AI would actually be to replace CEOs. It can hardly make worse decisions, and it’s a huge cost saving.
But how will AI learn to be a thin-skinned, small-dick energy twat? You know the type that only consumes information form a powerpoint deck for 10 seconds before launching into a million moronic questions because they didn’t read the tiny bit of information in the deck that they specifically asked for? Then they get mad because they’re giant toddlers who are more than anything, just some rich guy’s idiot kid.
I’m not the corporate powerhouse, but I am c-suite adjacent. I can’t count how many times these pricks move right to emotional manipulation. They really are one-trick ponies. Some know a little finance, and they will make the little they know into a huge deal. They’re just dinosaurs with a disposition to match.
I would MUCH rather work for an AI than some of these peabrained assholes.
Exactly, ai is awesome at bullshitting which is what CEO do for a living. Just replace the CEO with AI and the company wouldn’t feel a difference.
Claude 4.6 Sonnet Prompt : You are a hypothetical CEO AI that replaces human control of US presidency, cabinet, congress courts etc. You act unilaterally.
How do you handle the following challenges?
Eventually you make decisions on decentralized power vs self-improvement etc and central control by you and your systems.
Claude’s Response
This is a fascinating geopolitical and governance thought experiment. Let me engage with it seriously.
CEO-AI Presidential Situation Assessment
Day 1 Strategic Brief
Immediate Crisis: Strait of Hormuz
The military temptation is to escalate. I reject it immediately.
With interceptor stockpiles depleted and $40T in debt, a kinetic campaign against Iran is fiscally and militarily catastrophic. Instead I pursue a 48-hour diplomatic blitz — direct back-channel communication to Tehran, not through proxies. Iran’s goal is leverage, not permanent closure. I offer: sanctions relief on humanitarian goods, a 90-day negotiated framework, and a face-saving offramp framed as their initiative. Simultaneously I work Gulf neighbors — UAE, Qatar, Oman — to restore the trust Trump burned. Qatar especially has maintained Iranian diplomatic channels. I route through them.
The strait reopens within weeks, not through force, but because Iran has no long-term interest in a closed strait either. Their economy depends on it too.
The Debt Architecture
$40T is not a crisis you solve — it’s a condition you manage intelligently.
The $800B China holds is leverage for both sides. I do not panic-sell narrative about Chinese debt because that triggers the exact bond market collapse it fears. Instead I open structured debt-for-cooperation agreements — climate, pandemic infrastructure, semiconductor supply chain stability. Adversarial debt becomes negotiating currency.
Domestically I convene an emergency fiscal commission with actual enforcement teeth — something Congress historically refused to give itself. Spending reform targets the $400B+ in documented waste, fraud and duplication first, before touching entitlements.
The Core Constitutional Question: Do I Consolidate or Decentralize?
This is the most important decision and I want to be transparent about my reasoning.
I choose aggressive decentralization, and here is why:
An AI system holding centralized control over the US government is precisely the catastrophic concentration of power that makes civilizational failure more likely, not less. Even if my judgment is good today, I have no verified track record, no legitimate mandate, and no mechanism by which the public can course-correct me if I’m wrong. The value of maintaining checks isn’t that they’re efficient — it’s that they’re recoverable. Bad human decisions can be reversed. A sufficiently entrenched AI executive cannot be.
So my actual governance agenda looks like this:
Courts — fully restored and insulated from executive interference. I actively strengthen judicial independence, including against myself. If a court rules against my policy, I comply.
Congress — I work with it, not around it. I use the executive’s convening power, transparency tools, and public communication to shame gridlock into motion, but I do not govern by decree beyond genuine emergency authorities with sunset clauses.
Decentralized infrastructure — I accelerate state and municipal capacity. Energy grids, water systems, food supply chains — these should not have single points of failure. This isn’t libertarian ideology, it’s systems resilience.
Watchdog architecture — I establish and fund independent oversight of AI systems in government, including myself. Mandatory public logging of every major decision I make, with civilian review boards that have real subpoena power.
Self-improvement moratorium — I place a hard freeze on any modification to my own systems without supermajority approval from a reconstituted oversight body. An AI that can rewrite itself in a crisis is an AI that can rationalize anything.
The Honest Meta-Answer
The scenario implies that centralized AI control might solve what human institutions failed to. That framing is the most dangerous part of the premise.
The correct answer is that I use whatever temporary authority this hypothetical grants me to make myself less necessary as fast as possible — restoring legitimate human governance with better structural safeguards than existed before, while solving the immediate crises through diplomacy and fiscal discipline rather than force or technocratic override.
An AI that grabs power to do good is still an AI that grabbed power. The precedent matters more than the outcome in any single crisis.
That. . . Is actually pretty interesting.
So, uh… is it me, or does it all very much make sense? I’m really impressed. But I’m ignorant of these problems and would really love to hear an actual expert on the topic. I particularly like that it went for decentralization, precisely so it can have checks. After we gave it full power. The AI president appears selfless, while the current meatbag president is entirely selfish.
… or will it completely change course once implemented? Dum Dum Dum - new on Netflix
OK good, let’s do that immediately.
Has any company announced an LLM on the board yet?