Midjourney is an incorporated company. It has a board and at least one shareholder. Whether or not they're all the same person is irrelevant to the point made, which is that this annoying notion people keep bringing up when a CEO makes a choice that they're somehow inherently required to do what maximises profit is false.
> As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him.
You made a general point. I agree with your general point.
That last statement seemed to me to be about Midjourney specifically.
In which case, because of Midjourney’s peculiar situation for this kind of company, it would have been inaccurate.
And even if said statement wasn’t about Midjourney specifically, considering the subject at hand, pointing out it’s peculiar situation seemed relevant.
But again, I totally agree that no, even though it’s often expected of them, CEOs aren’t inherently required to maximise profit.
It's not inaccurate, though. Midjourney, Inc. is a Delaware registered corporation. It has a board, and at least one shareholder. They can both be the same person as the CEO, but that doesnt change any of what I wrote.
I don't know, maybe you interpreted the last paragraph as making a specific claim about Midjourney, but it did not. It was part of the general point.
