Mark Zuckerberg seems to be navigating a midlife crisis, and it appears he’s using his billions to cope with it. Meta, his company, is launching a competitor to ChatGPT, akin to a shot from Joe Biden – it might spark some interest, but it’s not making waves. While other chatbots seem to have been forgotten, Zuckerberg is reportedly offering huge salaries, effectively nine figures, to attract anyone capable of developing a superintelligent AI, something that he believes could save humanity.
This is worth considering. After a shift towards jiu-jitsu and a distinctive haircut reminiscent of North Korea, complete with a new vibe of “I’m now reading emotions,” he’s also sporting a gold chain. Once a figure fitting the typical tech CEO, his transformation is somewhat bizarre.
Maybe you think AI could be as appealing as a gas station hot dog. I admit, I’m a bit of a skeptic, and frankly, I might have been called worse. The same individual who turned Facebook into a haven for anger-fueled content and targeted ads now wants to take charge of our cognitive framework. Imagine hiring an arsonist to lead a fire department — it seems absurd that they’d be confused when the fire truck arrives late, and the hose is, well, full of gasoline.
Diversification of dopamine
Facebook’s evolution from a college network to a chaotic engagement engine wasn’t just a fluke. It’s what happens when a company realizes anger drives interactions. While Google dominated search and Amazon took over shopping, Meta mined emotional responses across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, turning genuine human connections into mere products.
The stats back this up: Meta’s revenue skyrocketed from $28 billion in 2016 to about $160 billion today, largely by keeping users glued to screens through some sort of weaponized dopamine. It doesn’t matter if you’re watching cat videos or fights unfolding in comments; what counts is keeping those eyes glued to the screen. Now, Zuckerberg aims to replicate this ruthless efficiency in the AI realm.
The patterns are all too familiar. It promises connection but delivers addiction. It offers information but serves propaganda. It claims intelligence, but what do we really get? Given Meta’s track record, I can’t help but suspect that their envisioning of AI might not be much better than a questionable snack from a gas station.
Growth Trap
Zuckerberg’s shift toward AI reveals a troubling truth about today’s tech giants. They’re stuck in a cycle of their own making; everything they touch turns into engagement metrics rather than gold. Sure, Meta still controls three of the most popular platforms worldwide, but in this new AI age, it feels a bit like boasting about owning the best fax machines.
Relevance feels like it’s constantly shifting. The game has evolved; it’s not just about connecting people anymore — it’s about predicting, training, and even replacing them. In this ongoing arms race, even monumental corporations like Meta face the pressure to adapt or risk extinction. It’s a sort of Darwinism for venture capital: adapt or fade away.
When the core product becomes associated with political rants from grandma or uncle’s cryptocurrency schemes, investors are left seeking a fresh narrative. AI Superintelligence could serve that narrative, despite the fact that the storyteller has a habit of turning family dinners into ideological battlegrounds.
Altman alternatives
Differentiating between Zuckerberg and Sam Altman feels like choosing between two forms of manipulation: would you prefer being influenced by someone openly aware of it or someone who seems to present themselves as a savior? Altman plays the philosopher role effectively. Calm and collected, he manages the AI conversation while centralizing power over a future he presents as protective. In contrast, Zuckerberg feels frantic, desperately chasing relevance like someone running out of borrowed time.
The real concern isn’t about who’s worse. The issue is why we should trust either man—both have reshaped society with products designed for profit rather than principles—to guide us into the next era of human progress. Altman acknowledges the risks associated with his proposals, while Zuckerberg seems unconcerned, hoping no one notices the mess along the way.
If there’s any brilliance in Zuckerberg’s approach, it’s an understanding that AI control isn’t about crafting the best algorithms but about monopolizing the infrastructure that sustains them. With Meta’s vast data centers and global reach, their AI may be widespread, even if it lacks finesse.
This resembles a Walmart approach to AI: dominate through sheer size and distribution, gradually sacrificing quality while maintaining market power. Rather than offering cheap products that break, Meta is preparing to sell cheap concepts that may fall apart and, possibly, tear society apart as well.
Regulation blank
The most surprising aspect of Zuckerberg’s AI ambitions isn’t his track record of turning goodwill into cautionary tales; it’s the utter absence of checks on his power. Regulators, often overwhelmed by the fallout from social media on public discourse and mental health, face the daunting task of overseeing the rise of artificial intelligence. It’s like asking the DMV to oversee a space launch — slow and utterly unqualified, leading us toward a likely catastrophe.
By the time lawmakers begin to grasp the implications of their inquiries, Zuckerberg will have the answers ready, maybe even the lawmakers themselves. As he harvests user data with increasing vigor, we’re likely to look back on his past testimonies about privacy and wonder how quaint they seem in comparison. It reflects a growing trend where constraints lag behind reality.
Zuckerberg’s AI endeavors might follow the trajectory of his other products: bright beginnings overshadowed by swift scaling, declining quality, and unexpected consequences. The difference now is that while social media’s algorithms prioritized engagement to the detriment of quality, when AI prioritizes the wrong metrics, the potential fallout could escalate dramatically, impacting everything from everyday experiences to monumental consequences.
The person who aimed to “connect the world” ultimately shattered it like a digital sledgehammer. The platforms that pledged to bring us closer instead turned family gatherings into confrontation zones. And now, he’s aiming to democratize intelligence while constructing the most centralized cognitive structure in human history.
Zuckerberg hasn’t built anything that works as promised in the past. Yet, he asserts that this time is different, exuding confidence as if he’s never faced repercussions before. This venture isn’t just about connecting individuals or sharing experiences; it’s about creating an artificial mind that could think for us, make decisions for us, and perhaps share private thoughts for advertising purposes.
What could go wrong? Everything. And if things don’t unfold well, there’s no “Delete Account” option. Your account could very well become your essence, with Zuckerberg in control of your access.
