In a survey covered by CFO.com, 55% of respondents earning $150,000 to $200,000 a year support replacing CEOs, CFOs and other senior executives with AI. But Blake Oliver points out someone still has to read the analysis, correct it and decide what happens next.
On Episode 508 of The Accounting Podcast, Blake and co-host David Leary connect that survey to pressure on hourly billing and AI audits with one question: who will stand behind the work?
Wanting an AI Boss Doesn’t Prove AI Can Lead
In the Watch Chest survey covered by CFO.com, support for replacing senior executives with AI varied sharply. Forty-five percent of men favored it, compared with 25% of women. The $150,000–$200,000 income group showed the strongest support, at 55%.
David offered a theory about that income split. Higher earners may work closer to executives and feel their teams do the real work. Blake added that middle managers can be “at the mercy” of bad leaders and then pass unreasonable demands to their staff. Neither explanation was a survey finding.
David also distinguished replacing a CEO from automating the work of staff members who prepare slide decks and carry out the CEO’s plans. Blake suggested project management could be a target.
The survey doesn’t answer whether respondents trust AI to run a company. Are they just frustrated with the people running it? Those are two very different questions.
Automation Shifts Work Into Review and Direction
Blake sees AI absorbing finance work, including forecasting, monitoring, month-end close workflows, strategy support and merger-and-acquisition analysis. But can it replace top executives now?
“Definitely, no, not at this point,” he said. “You have to really monitor it, and you have to correct it.” If you let it operate on its own, “you get terrible results at this point.”
Blake often has 20 different AI chats going at once. He reads the output, gives new instructions and moves between tasks while waiting for responses. David uses several AI agents and described the same strain. More gets done, but constant context switching makes the work exhausting.
Blake prefers directing AI to sitting through meetings and delegating. Still, he doesn’t think he can sustain more than six solid hours of that work a day. That is his personal experience, not a universal limit.
“You’re doing heavier reps with your brain,” he said.
The work has changed, but it hasn’t disappeared. Production speeds up, but review is still essential, leaving firm leaders to figure out what clients should pay for.
The Billable Hour Faces Pressure From Both Sides
Blake sees large law firms as a warning for accounting. Citing New York Times DealBook reporting, he described Ropes & Gray’s work on a system designed to produce detailed due-diligence reports in hours rather than weeks.
Clients want to know what those tools mean for their bills. Some use AI agents to flag invoice entries where automation might have reduced the hours, then challenge charges or demand discounts. In-house legal teams often request 20% to 30% reductions across the board, according to the reporting.
Those requests aren’t proof of equivalent savings. Law firms argue that AI hasn’t saved as much time as clients assume, but allows deeper analysis. That echoes the hosts’ experience. More output doesn’t always mean less effort.
Meanwhile, competitors built around AI from the start offer upfront pricing. Traditional firms face a bind: using AI can reduce billable hours, while avoiding it lets competitors undercut them.
Blake cited a Citi survey of 55 large law firms. Of those, 35% expected to modify their billable-hour models within a year because of AI, rising to two-thirds by 2035. Changing the model doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning hourly billing.
The pressure hasn’t stopped growth. Blake cited Wells Fargo figures showing average large-firm revenue growth above 12% in the first half of 2026, while standard billing rates rose by double digits.
David noted that firms may raise rates to offset fewer hours. Blake argued that this approach eventually pushes clients toward fixed-fee alternatives. “I think accounting will follow,” he said.
AI Audits Need More Than an Audit Label
Blake reported that Illinois became the first state to require independent audits of AI developers’ safety claims. Starting in 2028, major developers must hire an outside party each year to check whether they followed their published safety plans.
But checking compliance with a developer’s own plan doesn’t guarantee its AI is safe.
According to Blake, audits must follow generally accepted auditing standards, but the law doesn’t require auditors to be CPAs. It also doesn’t create a certification, registry, accrediting board or disciplinary body for AI auditors.
“This would be perfect work for CPAs,” he said. “They just didn’t require it.”
David raised a comparison with crypto companies’ reports, which Blake described as “the non-audits they called audits.” Blake worried that reassuring reports could reach the public without enough safeguards for competence, ethics and independence. “The whole point is trust,” he said.
David suggested that the AICPA could respond publicly on behalf of the profession.
The opportunity isn’t simply to produce more reports, but to provide oversight people can trust. AI can speed up work, but the hosts’ discussion shows why review, judgment and responsibility still matter. Accountants can’t take their advantage for granted.
Listen to Episode 508 of The Accounting Podcast for Blake and David’s full discussion of AI leadership, billing pressure and who should audit AI developers.