GoKawiilOn Monday, Mark Zuckerberg published a 6,500 word manifesto about personal AI, largely about the possibilities for the “personal superintelligence” systems Meta AI is building. The ideas in the post aren’t totally new. A version of the essay ran in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago and he’s talked about them on Meta earnings calls before. But this is probably the most detailed version he’s shared.
I’ve seen it described as an anti-doomer essay, but that’s not quite right. It’s more of a description of why Mark Zuckerberg is personally excited about the ways AI is going to change society. Yet, even as Zuckerberg tries to paint a picture of the wonderful future abundant superintelligence will bring, he keeps reminding us of all the ways it’s likely to go wrong.
I find AI exciting too — that’s why I keep writing about it — but a lot of the public sees AI as creepy and unpleasant. So it’s worth pinning down exactly what’s happening here, and why Zuckerberg isn’t doing the industry any favors with essays like this.
Social media is still a sensitive topic in the tech industry, and we don’t have the space here to litigate the relative merits of every single complaint people have about Facebook. Suffice it to say, Facebook as a prodcut and Zuckerberg as a person are both unpopular with the US public. A recent survey found that 64 percent of Americans believe social media has been harmful to democracy and a similar percentage believe it should be more heavily regulated, numbers that cut evenly across partisan lines. Just this weekend, a court fined the company $567 million for being harmful to children. The vibes are bad.
I don’t bring this up to imply that Zuckerberg should withdraw to the wilderness in shame — but the fallout from social media is one of the central reasons we’re now seeing so much anxiety about the social impact of AI. Whether it’s fair or not, the public does not trust tech executives to make sure new technologies like this have a positive impact on society. Instead of acknowledging that and trying to win back their trust, this essay demonstrates over and over again how the trust was lost in the first place.
A large part of the essay is devoted to hazy generalities about intelligence — very similar to the hazy generalities Zuckerberg and Dorsey used to give about free speech. Here is one for instance:
As everyone gains more powerful tools, each person will become more capable of shaping the future, not less….People and institutions with competing interests naturally check and balance each other to lead towards positive outcomes. The best and most realistic path to building a positive AI future is by delivering superintelligence to everyone.
I guess? I can think of a few examples of conflicting interests leading to bad outcomes, but let’s put that aside. The weirder thing is that this is being presented as an earnest philosophical conclusion, instead of a specific product called “personal intelligence” that Meta is bringing to market. If you’re already inclined to distrust this person, you might worry that they’re writing all this to convince themselves that nothing bad can happen.
That feeling got more intense for me when Zuckerberg got to the specific examples, many of which are alarmingly out of touch with the reality of how AI tools are being used. For instance, this is Zuckerberg’s take on AI in education:
Everyone will have a personalized tutor and coach with a PhD in every subject and unlimited patience to help you learn anything you want. Students will have extra help in areas they need it that is currently only available to those whose parents can pay. Adults will have a superintelligent learning assistant that knows exactly how to teach you new job skills, new languages, new hobbies, or anything else you’re interested in.
... continue reading