Available on Apple Podcasts

Available on Spotify

This week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg released an extensive 6,500-word essay titled “The Future is for Everyone,” offering a hopeful vision of an AI-driven world where “everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about.”

Drawing a contrast with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—who spent the weekend refuting claims that he’s an AI doomer—Rebecca observed that Zuckerberg seems to be casting himself as “almost like an anti-Dario.” The real issue, though, lies in Zuckerberg and Meta’s track record. “Looking back at the social media era, [Zuckerberg] claimed he wanted to give everyone a platform to connect with friends and build social networks,” Rebecca noted. “But what did we end up with? Rage-baiting and ads, not genuine connection.”

Here’s a preview of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length.

Rebecca Bellan: Cynically, I see this as Meta’s attempt to compete on a different front. They aren’t dominating the frontier, closed-model arena, and they’re not necessarily leading in the open-source space either. But when it comes to personal empowerment—the theme of Zuckerberg’s letter—that’s where he’s aiming to win. He wants to supply the models that people will use to power their own personal AI on their own devices. Last year, when he published a similar “Futures for Everyone” letter, the expectation was that much of that AI would find its way into glasses and wearables. But it’s still unclear what the ultimate hardware form factor will be, and it seems like he’s leaving that choice to individuals. His concept is that you’d use [Meta’s new AI model] Glimmer to manage your calendar, draft messages, and organize files—always on, ready to operate anytime, anywhere, even offline. Meanwhile, Muse Spark remains, giving them a way to retain some control over their most advanced models, while also creating a revenue stream for those who need more computing power, whether for ambitious personal projects or larger corporate initiatives.

Anthony Ha: I’d imagine part of the context here is that Meta has poured serious money into AI—last year alone, there were countless stories about the hefty sums they were offering to attract AI researchers. Yet, when people talk about the leading frontier labs, Meta rarely comes up. It also doesn’t surface in conversations about popular consumer AI chatbots. Sure, people engage with Meta AI tools within Instagram and Facebook, but it’s not the first company that springs to mind when you think, “I’m looking for a personal assistant.” Meta hasn’t earned that reputation yet. So, to some degree, this feels like an effort to rebrand themselves and carve out a space where they haven’t had much success before. Is that a fair assessment?

Rebecca: I think that’s quite fair. I’d also take it with a grain of salt, because Zuckerberg loves to paint a picture of how his companies will uplift and empower people. So far, though, what does that look like for Meta? Llama is certainly a great open-source tool, but at the consumer level, how are people actually using Meta AI? Well, there are plenty of unsettling chatbots out there. My short take is that [Zuckerberg’s] letter and his vision of personal empowerment are leaving a sour taste in many people’s mouths, precisely because it’s him delivering the message. Russell Brandom, our AI editor, touched on this in a piece this week. Looking back to the social media days, Zuckerberg promised everyone an outlet to talk with friends and build a social network. Instead, we got outrage bait and advertisements, not meaningful connection.

Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, I think the manifesto missed the mark for a lot of people. And Russell’s point—which he makes in his column—is that this is exactly what’s fueling people’s dislike or distrust of AI. It’s because the message is coming from Zuckerberg, and it also feels quite Pollyannaish. He’s offered these grand visions before, and it doesn’t present what I’d call a realistic picture. Instead, it casts AI as this wonderful tool for humanity. That might be true, but there will also be significant costs, and I think that’s why the backlash has been so broad.

Rebecca: It seems like he’s positioning himself as almost the opposite of Dario. There’s all this talk among frontier labs about “pacing the frontier, holding back, prioritizing safety, slowing down development.” Of course, they’re not actually doing any of that, but they’re saying it—especially in light of recent cybersecurity incidents. Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is saying, “No, we can’t slow down. We can’t afford to cede ground to China, and slowing down would only harm the individual who could be empowered by this technology.”

But honestly, I thought, “Maybe I’ll download Muse Glimmer and try it out.” Can I install it on my MacBook? No. It requires specific hardware—I can’t recall exactly what—and it’s not really accessible to the average person.

Kirsten: It’s not meant for everyone. Not yet, anyway.

Which I think is fair. Though my main takeaway isn’t that the AI future is bright—it’s more that it makes you question people who make these bold predictions and then charge ahead anyway. I also wanted to revisit Russell’s point, which I think is entirely valid, about how part of the problem is the messenger. For various reasons, people are wary of Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, and that skepticism could intensify in the coming months with the release of that new Facebook movie. But it’s also about the future these AI companies are promising. That’s why we see these viral pile-ons whenever Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, or someone else makes a prediction about this AI future, and people respond with, “Who actually wants this?” A notable recent example was Sam Altman floating the idea of using ChatGPT to generate podcasts about your kids’ interests for the drive to school—and, of course, everyone shot back, “Why not just talk to your kid?”

Part of the manifesto was largely abstract—talk of unleashing creativity and invention. If you’re skeptical about AI, none of that is convincing because it feels unreal. Then there’s the more concrete stuff about personal coaches and assistants, which has some appeal, but a lot of it doesn’t resonate.