The most ironic thing about the supposed AI takeover that I am told is coming imminently is that if you look at all of the professions that could conceivably be among the first to be taken over by AI, a company CEO is among the highest. A CEO now does nothing outside of the singular objective of making the company money devoid of compassion, concerns for the environment, social impact, etc. It's that single-mindedness in how they operate that makes the replacing a CEO the easiest job to replace with AI by a huge margin. With a factory worker, replacing them now means more machine upkeep and reprogramming to adapt to changing business needs. For a voice actor, the dialogue still needs to be gone over to ensure that the correct things are said in the right way for the given context. Artists are among the least likely to be replaced effectively, as computers cannot accurately simulate the creations that artists can do. But CEO's? I struggle to think why they can't be replaced right now. You can't tell me that an AI would have done a worse job were it in charge of Embracer Group instead of the flaccid, incompetent middle man that it has now.
"The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."