4 ms·

That's the price for Mr Zuckerberg's ownership structure. On the one hand, no one can dispute him. On the other hand, no one can dispute him.

laweijfmvo 2y ago
this is exactly what happened
- roominator 2y ago
  I could also see this being some executive trying to justify the word "AI" in their title with an initiative that should "make number go up" wrt to engagement or something. "When we have more users engagement goes up, let's just _make more users_".
MrMcCall 2y ago
And he is personally responsible for so much misery on Earth that he can likely never do enough good to make up for it, not that he's going to try. The reason he never looks happy is because he is never happy. Same with his fellow oligarchs; they can get pleasure in bunches but never happiness, they can be smug but never have peace. Happiness is what happens as a result of your helping others become happier; there is no shortcut, there is no other way. Zuck has only ever worked for himself and his "peers". History is riddled with those losers, the richer the worser. It is not just human nature but the nature of the universe vis a vis our human responsibility as choosers of goodness or its opposites.
- drdeca 2y ago
  > Happiness is what happens as a result of your helping others become happier; there is no shortcut, there is no other way. Zack has a comic on a similar concept: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-11-18 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-11-18 Of course, the exact line of reasoning doesn’t quite work for the different formulation you stated. However, a different version of the line of reasoning seems to? How does one help another person become happier if helping another person become happier is the only way to become happier? One helps them help someone else to help someone to… ? Or, I suppose if it is possible to be more or less unhappy for other reasons, so by helping another person become less unhappy (though not yet happy) one could thereby become happy?
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    We all must deal with other people to survive in this world, and our treatment of everyone every single day creates a karmic result that affects us proportionally. We are rewarded for our efforts, not their effects. If we truly try to help someone, we get some measure of happiness for our attempt, even if they refuse it or are otherwise miserable. When I tell someone to care for others' happiness, I do so in order that they do not sow the seeds of their own unhappiness. If they use their free will to ignore my recommendation, I do not lose for their choices; in fact, I've gained because I tried to help them make choices that will increase their peace and happiness. We cannot convince anyone to not be (for example) a racist, but when we engage in such efforts, we have tried to make the world a better, less miserable place, and we gain for our valiant attempt. The intention of our ethical karmic universe is to nudge us towards caring for others, instead of being selfish aholes callous to the misery of others. The feedback mechanism is our resulting inner peace and happiness (or lack thereof). All our choices start with an intention, however muddled or unconscious our thought process is at the time. When MZ chooses profit over policing his platform, he has planted bitter seeds, indeed, for we all reap what we sow, for good or ill. > Or, I suppose if it is possible to be more or less unhappy for other reasons, so by helping another person become less unhappy (though not yet happy) one could thereby become happy? Yes, indeed. And selflessly making efforts for others' happiness creates a well of magic the universe can dip into and sprinkle you with at its leisure, which is sublime and loving at its Source. That is why giving charity is so essential on the Spiritual Path of Love: because our individual and cultural selfishnesses are so stubborn, we need all the help we can get to truly self-evolve our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors. "Ask and ye shall receive, ..." --New Testament
KaiserPro 2y ago
So, Zuckerberg has got the AI horn. Well, he always had. But There are about 70k engineers at facebook, I doubt its possible for zuckerberg to be aware of all the product changes that happen in meta. However, it also shows that meta has no functioning marketing skills. This I suspect is also down to Zuck. Had they marketed it, and more importantly, had the engineers had the training to talk to marketing first, then this wouldn't have been an issue.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think it is reasonable to think shareholders would be vigilant safeguard on these types of R&D programs. They simply aren't that involved.
- namaria 2y ago
  Between shareholders and executives there's usually a board. Corporate governance is not simple and it is designed to control large organizations with several stakeholders. Appointing executives alone, in a well functioning corporation, is a complex affair.

laweijfmvo 2y ago

this is exactly what happened

roominator 2y ago
I could also see this being some executive trying to justify the word "AI" in their title with an initiative that should "make number go up" wrt to engagement or something. "When we have more users engagement goes up, let's just _make more users_".

MrMcCall 2y ago

And he is personally responsible for so much misery on Earth that he can likely never do enough good to make up for it, not that he's going to try. The reason he never looks happy is because he is never happy. Same with his fellow oligarchs; they can get pleasure in bunches but never happiness, they can be smug but never have peace. Happiness is what happens as a result of your helping others become happier; there is no shortcut, there is no other way. Zuck has only ever worked for himself and his "peers". History is riddled with those losers, the richer the worser. It is not just human nature but the nature of the universe vis a vis our human responsibility as choosers of goodness or its opposites.

drdeca 2y ago
> Happiness is what happens as a result of your helping others become happier; there is no shortcut, there is no other way. Zack has a comic on a similar concept: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-11-18 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-11-18 Of course, the exact line of reasoning doesn’t quite work for the different formulation you stated. However, a different version of the line of reasoning seems to? How does one help another person become happier if helping another person become happier is the only way to become happier? One helps them help someone else to help someone to… ? Or, I suppose if it is possible to be more or less unhappy for other reasons, so by helping another person become less unhappy (though not yet happy) one could thereby become happy?
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  We all must deal with other people to survive in this world, and our treatment of everyone every single day creates a karmic result that affects us proportionally. We are rewarded for our efforts, not their effects. If we truly try to help someone, we get some measure of happiness for our attempt, even if they refuse it or are otherwise miserable. When I tell someone to care for others' happiness, I do so in order that they do not sow the seeds of their own unhappiness. If they use their free will to ignore my recommendation, I do not lose for their choices; in fact, I've gained because I tried to help them make choices that will increase their peace and happiness. We cannot convince anyone to not be (for example) a racist, but when we engage in such efforts, we have tried to make the world a better, less miserable place, and we gain for our valiant attempt. The intention of our ethical karmic universe is to nudge us towards caring for others, instead of being selfish aholes callous to the misery of others. The feedback mechanism is our resulting inner peace and happiness (or lack thereof). All our choices start with an intention, however muddled or unconscious our thought process is at the time. When MZ chooses profit over policing his platform, he has planted bitter seeds, indeed, for we all reap what we sow, for good or ill. > Or, I suppose if it is possible to be more or less unhappy for other reasons, so by helping another person become less unhappy (though not yet happy) one could thereby become happy? Yes, indeed. And selflessly making efforts for others' happiness creates a well of magic the universe can dip into and sprinkle you with at its leisure, which is sublime and loving at its Source. That is why giving charity is so essential on the Spiritual Path of Love: because our individual and cultural selfishnesses are so stubborn, we need all the help we can get to truly self-evolve our ideals, attitudes, and behaviors. "Ask and ye shall receive, ..." --New Testament

KaiserPro 2y ago

So, Zuckerberg has got the AI horn. Well, he always had. But There are about 70k engineers at facebook, I doubt its possible for zuckerberg to be aware of all the product changes that happen in meta. However, it also shows that meta has no functioning marketing skills. This I suspect is also down to Zuck. Had they marketed it, and more importantly, had the engineers had the training to talk to marketing first, then this wouldn't have been an issue.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I dont think it is reasonable to think shareholders would be vigilant safeguard on these types of R&D programs. They simply aren't that involved.

namaria 2y ago
Between shareholders and executives there's usually a board. Corporate governance is not simple and it is designed to control large organizations with several stakeholders. Appointing executives alone, in a well functioning corporation, is a complex affair.