12 ms·
Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
- croisillon 1y agothe source code horror of this motherducking webpage
- colesantiago 1y agoI don't buy these Superintelligence claims from Meta of 'abundance' and 'humans are free to do other things' as they are tied to Wall St and earnings. It is always abundance for the super rich, scarcity for those in jobs. How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat? So eventually they will do the opposite of this 'vision' and put this super intelligence to replace jobs. Also, what happened to the Metaverse that Meta invested hundreds of billions as per their namesake?
- jerojero 1y agoThe metaverse is an important part for this vision of the future. With the metaverse it won't matter that you live in a 3x3m cubicle because you will use your VR headset to pretend you live in a spacious and comfortable place. That's how it was in snow crash anyway, where the term comes from.
- jazzyjackson 1y ago> Meta invested hundreds of billions as per their namesake They bought a shit ton of GPUs before the LLM boom, which gave them a running start on training their own model. Zuck talks about it in an interview with Lex Friedman.
- gishglish 1y ago> How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat? You can work his fields in exchange for most of the harvest of course!
- lo_zamoyski 1y agoOr join a purgatorial society in exchange for free grazing on his land!
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago> How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat? This is the fatal flaw. It's been recognized explicitly for at least 140 years that the price of land rent rises in lockstep with productivity increases, guaranteeing there is no "escape velocity" for the labor class regardless of how good technology gets.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago>regardless of how good technology gets Technology increases aren't there so you work less hours for the same pay, they're there so your business owner gets more money form you working the same hours. If a machine gets invented that can do your job it's not like you can now go home and relax for the rest of your life and still keep receiving your pay cheques. This utopia doesn't exist.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoYes but even this ignores the more important dynamic at play: rent rises to eat nearly all the productivity gains. If you add technology to your workplace your wages should go up (not to eat all the gains of the technology, but a decent portion via wage competition), but then once your wages go up, the local rent goes up anyway.
- 9rx 1y agoOf course, that's why experts started pushing college/university as the way to find escape, with an understanding that people could use its research facilities to create capital instead of falling into the labor class. But it was ultimately lost in translation. The layman heard: Go to college/university to become a more appealing laborer to employers. And thus nothing improved for the people; the promises of things like higher income never occurred — incomes have held stagnant.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago>people could use its research facilities to create capital This is just survivorship bias. Of course most people choose the employment route since very few people are gonna become good researchers with valuable ideas, and even fewer of those have the ability to become successful business owners, being a good researcher is not enough. And money doesn't just rain from the sky, you still need money to make money.
- khelavastr 1y agoHow is "superintelligence" defined?
- lo_zamoyski 1y agoThe first rule of marketing and hype is to never define your terms. Instead, you insinuate and play into fantasy and wishful thinking.
- wslh 1y agoSame question. I don't think there's a universal definition of superintelligence. Just to add some food for thought: Is superintelligence simply a very high IQ, a higher than top humans one? If so, we'd need a way to measure that, since existing IQ tests are designed for human intelligence. Or is superintelligence about scale/order-of-magnitude: many high-IQ minds working together? That would imply a different kind of threshold. But perhaps the key idea is that superintelligence is inherently uncapped, that is once we reach a level we consider "superintelligent" we can still imagine something even more advanced that fits the same label.
- criddell 1y agoI define it as smarter than humans. The same way a dog will never understand L'Hôpital's rule, there are probably things that human beings will never understand but future AIs will. I'd call those AIs superintelligent.
- alazoral 1y agoI think it’s too easy to get anthropocentric and 1D about intelligence. That dog understands things about the world, important things, that mere humans like Bernoulli could never even dream of.
- criddell 1y agoIt's anthropocentric because it's being built by humans. If a dog built a superintelligent AI, I would assume it would be canocentric.
- AIorNot 1y agoIs he renaming the company again?
- schmorptron 1y agoif the way they are explicitly starting to optimize llm chats for engagements and friend-like behaviour, he'll just need to switch around some letters to call it Mate
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- throwmeoutplzdo 1y agoOr Meat, if they were completely honest about their users’ role in the equation </compulsory matrix reference>
- steve1977 1y agoFrom Meta to Super? The next step would be Hyper and we have the modifier keys of the space-cadet keyboard covered.
- Barrin92 1y agoAnthropic, to their credit, just published that pretty funny paper about how they couldn't get their chatbot to run a single vending machine profitably[1]. Admirable that Mark is so visionary he's skipped straight past Bodega-intelligence to super-intelligence [1]https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1?ref=blog.mozilla.ai https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1?ref=blog.m...
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoAnthropic also expects that superintelligence will be reached in the somewhat near future. The intuition is that there's just not that much distance between a chatbot that can manage a vending machine poorly and a chatbot that can manage it well.
- blibble 1y agothat intuition is wrong
- frahs 1y ago[citation needed]
- blibble 1y agoexactly, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim so SpicyLemonZest, not me
- Integrape 1y agoNever had a spicy lemon, so I'm already sceptical.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoTo be clear, I personally don't think that current models point the way towards superintelligence. But it does us no good to pretend that this is some absurd opinion from a guy who's looking for the next world revolution after the Metaverse didn't work out. Zuckerberg thinks superintelligence is close because a number of experts actively engaged in the field say that it's close. When you and I say it's not close, we're disagreeing not with crazy randos who can be dismissed out of hand, but with smart people who generally know what they're doing.
- jonplackett 1y agoWhen prompt injection is solved I’ll believe super intelligence is possible.
- raghavtoshniwal 1y agoIsn't that a bit like saying that if common cold is solved, you will believe that human intelligence is possible? Why isn't it super intelligent if there are security flaws in the system. [Not taking a stance on wether super intelligence is possible but your condition seems a bit arbitrary]
- jonplackett 1y agoI guess what I mean is - if it can be easily derailed from its super intelligence - then it can’t be that intelligent. It’s just a tool, doing as it’s told.
- twoodfin 1y agoIf trends continue, then you'd expect people to spend less time in productivity software, and more time creating and connecting. Does the average American worker today spend a ton of time in productivity software? I know and Zuckerberg surely knows the impact on labor will be much more pervasive than that, so it seems like an odd way to frame the future.
- reaperducer 1y agomore time creating Considering that the most common use for "AI" is to take jobs away from creators like artists, musicians, illustrators, writers, and such, I find this statement hard to believe. So far, all I've seen is AI taking money away from the least-paid workers (artists, et.al.) and giving it to tech billionaires.
- K0balt 1y agoBut people have to keep creating to feed the AI! AI is extractive, not creative, so without people toiling away and adding actual creativity, current paradigm AI will become increasingly derivative and uninspiring… so the obvious answer is to put people into nutrient filled VR pods so they can imagine actually new things to power the AI hive-mind.
- reaperducer 1y agoDoes the average American worker today spend a ton of time in productivity software? "Average?" No. But many millions of people, yes. The majority of people in my company spend their day tied to Microsoft Office. Which bring its own problems when managers don't understand that building a computer program isn't the same speed, complexity, and skill level as making a PowerPoint presentation.
- ctippett 1y agoI know your comparison to PowerPoint was probably not meant to be taken literally, but I'll just add that a good presentation takes just as much time, skill and effort as any creative endeavour (including programming).
- demirbey05 1y agoWe didn't even reach AGI and no sign with LLMs.
- coldpie 1y agoDeeply embarrassing to see this coming from one of America's most powerful companies, especially after the metaverse faceplant from a few years back.
- techpineapple 1y agoWhy embarrassing? Having one failure means you can’t try again?
- coldpie 1y agoLLMs are not going to fundamentally reshape society. Productivity will go up a couple percent, the profits from that productivity will go to the richest people. Some jobs will be made redundant, some new jobs will be created. That's it. Same as it ever was.
- FergusArgyll 1y agoThat's your opinion. It may be correct but it's not embarrassing for a CEO to have different opinion that you
- coldpie 1y agoIt's embarrassing to me as an American that the people who are leading our society are so plainly in the loony bin.
- queenkjuul 1y agoBut his opinion, itself, is an embarrassing opinion for a person to have
- yodsanklai 1y agoNothing is surprising in the current Zeigest...
- mrcwinn 1y ago>Personal superintelligence that knows us deeply, understands our goals, and can help us achieve. >We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. So... ads.
- saubeidl 1y agoNot just ads. Psyops, a propaganda machine unlike anything the world has ever seen. There's a reason Zuck and the US government are real cozy lately.
- bigbadfeline 1y agoWe're already there, in this particular case, superintendence cant do any better than plain old LLMs.
- ankit219 1y agoThat is the model everyone gravitate towards. Openai's Fidji too started with the note about how superintelligence is for everyone. I think it would be back to income based tiers though. You want more assistance, pay $200 per month. Even more, maybe $2000 (for companies). Then, if you dont want to pay, you get contextual ads (which would work here because llms can contextualize far better), and a lower quality of service.
- 5350-uiop-1130 1y ago> “Personal superintelligence” just running on metas servers with metas software and metas tracking and algorithms. > "This is distinct from others in the industry who believe superintelligence should be directed centrally towards automating all valuable work, and then humanity will live on a dole" says the guy who spend most of the last 3 years laying people off. theres just too much sliminess to dissect. i leave it at that. one thing for sure, these evil megacorps will use this tech in a dystopian and extractive way. nothing ever changes.
- subpixel 1y ago"more meaningful impact on our lives will likely come from everyone having a personal superintelligence that helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be." Meanwhile I can't properly find items that are listed on FB marketplace.
- orochimaaru 1y agoIt’s a fluff piece for investors. I think the same may have been said for the metaverse.
- lo_zamoyski 1y agoIt is possible to hold the following two statements to be true without risk of contradiction: 1. LLMs and "AI" broadly can become a very useful and powerful technology that can have a transformative effect on industry and so on. 2. Talk of "superintelligence" is total horseshit.
- techpineapple 1y agoI’m curious how many people are actually outside of this, most debates seem to boil down to, “ AI isn’t bullshit I’ve used it and I find I useful” and my argument as a skeptic isn’t that it doesn’t do the things people clearly see it does, nor that those use cases will improve, but that valuations and investment are at the levels of “solving scarcity”
- AIPedant 1y agoThis applies precisely to 1970s AI boosters getting way too excited about Prolog and Lisp.
- tantalor 1y agoHi Mark, Can you put a date on this please? Thanks, tantalor
- Oras 1y agoThe art of writing so many words without communicating anything useful.
- K0balt 1y agoWritten by meta.ai But at least he’s trying to signal benevolence. People getting trapped into their projected image is a thing, so in this day and age I’m going to take this as a win.
- azinman2 1y agoI don’t know who will buy this puff piece of a utopian future brought to you by… Meta? Filled with scandal after negative world changing behaviors that they don’t stop? The ones that want to make money no matter what harms it does? Why would the future with even more powerful technology be any different?
- hnthrow90348765 1y agoThis stuff is naive. There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity, and they will fight to preserve it unless you give them an equivalent station in the 'new world'. But you will still need to sustain ex-workers if they can't get normal jobs, and those same people at the top will not tolerate the taxes required to sustain a basic level of living for much wider population. They already can't tolerate the idea of a much smaller population using food assistance or healthcare from the government. That leads me to think this is not really a visionary statement, but just a signal that Mark isn't intentionally trying to bring about a new dystopia, and here's his proof. And if a dystopia happens to come about, you can't blame him because he had pure intentions; clearly it was everyone else who just didn't agree with him and it's their fault. Maybe make Meta a not-for-profit and there might be some credibility here.
- lvl155 1y agoLast time I commented on Zuck on HN I got a warning. That said, this stuff confirms for the 100th time that he is out of touch with reality. Perhaps that’s why he wanted to make VR work so badly. I think he might try to change Co’s name again since Meta doesn’t fit the bill anymore. How about they buy Intel and reverse merge just for the name?
- benterix 1y ago> he might try to change Co’s name again since Meta doesn’t fit the bill anymore. If so, the logical choice would be to change the name from "Meta" to "AGI".
- lvl155 1y agoI was thinking they buy Intel and say “we are going to make Intel super. SuperIntel.” Zuck seems to like the term superintelligence over AGI.
- whamlastxmas 1y agoThey’re two separate concepts
- lenerdenator 1y agoIf there's one person I trust to raise a superintelligence, it's Mark Zuckerberg. EDIT: to clarify, this is sarcasm
- alittletooraph2 1y agongl that felt like reading a lot of fluff
- grimpy 1y agowhy does this page have the same look as ssi.inc? feels kind of strange to copy that of all things?
- abxyz 1y agoits a stylistic choice, it’s a statement: content is all that matters. Brutalist websites have been around for a long time. https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
- grimpy 1y agoim quite of aware of what it is. this isn't just "make a brutalist website" it is "make a website that looks like ssi when meta has multiple platforms and means to publish the same message." it is much more intentional than "lets make it look like web 1"
- bonoboTP 1y agoIf you "view source", you'll see that the difference is day and night. ssi.inc is a simple html website. This Meta memo is a JS framework monster.
- jameskilton 1y agoFacebook / Meta and Mark in particular are an amazing case of someone who is, at least at this point, incapable of learning from past mistakes, or even recognizing the mistakes they have made and are continuing to make. Facebook's mission of "connecting the world" turned out to be the absolute worst thing anyone should ever try to do. Humans are social creatures, yes, but every connection we make costs energy to maintain, and at a certain point (Dunbar's Number) we apply the minimal amount of energy and effort. With Internet anonymity, that means we are actually incapable of treating each other as people on the Internet, leading to the rise of toxicity and much, much worse. Mark has never understood this, and as his fortune is built around not understanding this, he never will. There is nothing good that will come from Meta's "superintelligence" and this vision is proof.
- 9rx 1y ago> that means we are actually incapable of treating each other as people on the Internet Well, that's because there aren't people on the internet! I mean, yes, us technologists understand that there are often people pulling knobs and levers behind the scenes as an implementation detail, so technically they are there. But they are only implementation details, not what makes it what it is. If you replaced the implementation with another algorithm that functions just as well, nobody would notice. In that sense, it is just software. > leading to the rise of toxicity and much, much worse. It is not so much that it has lead to anything different, but that those who used to be in the forest yelling at animals as if they were human moved into civilized areas when they started yelling at computers as if they were human. That has taken their mental disorders to where it is much more visible.
- dinfinity 1y agoI don't think the "connecting the world" was the problem. IRC also has tons of toxicity and connects people all over the world. The core problem is gamification of social interaction. The 'Like' button and everything like it for things people say or show is hands down the worst thing to happen on the internet. Everywhere they can, people whore for karma (unless they spend a lot of mental effort to fight back that urge). How primitive the related moderation systems are directly affects how much primitive shit gets rewarded and alas, most moderation systems are ridiculously primitive. So, dopamine hits for saying primitive shit.
- dupsik 1y ago>Over the last few months we have begun to see glimpses of our AI systems improving themselves. The improvement is slow for now, but undeniable. Does anyone know what this is referring to?
- Archonical 1y agoIf I told you "I've begun to see glimpses of my sobriety", would you be convinced I'm committed to not being an alcoholic? I don't think anyone knows what he is referring to. Maybe AlphaEvolve? Certainly not Llama.
- shortrounddev2 1y agoThe effect of Meta products from 2006~2022 has been disastrous for humanity. Social media companies are the new big tobacco. Allowing them to play a leading role in the development of AGI would probably be fatal for democracy around the world. I would not trust a single word that comes out of Mark Zuckerberg's mouth
- abxyz 1y ago“As recently as 200 years ago, 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Advances in technology have steadily freed much of humanity to focus less on subsistence and more on the pursuits we choose” More people today are dying from starvation than people existed on earth 200 years ago. Celebrating our achievements in making shareholders rich is one thing, but to take credit for freeing the people. Yikes. Mark is more out of touch than seems possible.
- queenkjuul 1y agoYeah he says stuff like that as if the vast majority of people even in his own country don't work continuously for their subsistence, to say nothing of the people in the less powerful countries his company exploits
- tim333 1y agoBecause there are more people. Life expectancy etc is way up.
- qprofyeh 1y agoReads as RIP Metaverse to me. Any time a CEO publishes such empty, wordy essays, it's probably earnings reporting time. I can't shake the feeling it's a public subreply at one of or a cluster of doubting investors, who started to doubt the CEOs vision for the company, or find the lack of one on a certain topic concerning.
- laweijfmvo 1y agoFWIW, today is Meta’s earnings report
- lvl155 1y agoThat’s exactly why he published this. To justify his insane investment spend. I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check. He’s not spending his money. He’s spending shareholder money to pursue personal projects and endeavors.
- 9rx 1y ago> I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check. What are they going to do, exactly? They explicitly invested in the company knowing that Zuckerberg would retain full control. If they can show gross negligence there may be a legal avenue, but it would be pretty hard to justify chasing potentially profitable business ventures, even if they end up failing, as being negligence. Controversial business decisions are not negligence in the eye of the law. Sure, they can sell their interest in the company — if someone else wants to buy it — but that just moves who the investor is around. That doesn't really change anything.
- lvl155 1y agoWell, very true. They let him spend $100B plus on a mediocre VR devices that’s not improved all that much under Zuck. I keep thinking, what if they took that $100B and invested in Nvidia.
- aschobel 1y ago> We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. That said, superintelligence will raise novel safety concerns. We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Still, we believe that building a free society requires that we aim to empower people as much as possible. So maybe no more open source because of "safety"?
- sailingparrot 1y ago> We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Here we go, predictably pulling the oldest trick in the book, just two weeks after it was reported [1] that the Superintelligence leadership was discussing moving to closed source for their best models, not for any risk mitigation reason, but for competitive reasons. Also, > As recently as 200 years ago, 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Advances in technology have steadily freed much of humanity to focus less on subsistence and more on the pursuits we choose. At each step, people have used our newfound productivity to achieve more than was previously possible, pushing the frontiers of science and health, as well as spending more time on creativity, culture, relationships, and enjoying life. Yea about that... Sure Mark can choose to just fly on his private Hawaiian Island, or is Tahoe bunker and mess around with metaverse and AI and whatever he chooses. 99.9% of the population has an old regular job that they go to for subsistence. Michael from north dakota has not been doing bookeeping for SMEs because this was always the pursuit of his dreams. I also see no reason at all to believe we spend more time on creativity, culture, relationships or enjoying life than before. Especially that last point is in free fall over the last 50 years by the look every single mental well being metric around. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/technology/meta-superintelligence-lab-ai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/technology/meta-superinte...
- simonsarris 1y ago> Here we go, predictably pulling the oldest trick in the book, just two weeks after it was reported [1] that the Superintelligence leadership was discussing moving to closed source for their best models, not for any risk mitigation reason, but for competitive reasons. That's not pulling a trick, that's doing precisely what Zuck said he would do. In April 2024 Zuck on Dwarkesh said that models are a commodity right now, but if models became the biggest differentiator, that Meta would stop open sourcing them. At the time he also said that the Model itself was probably not the most valuable part of an ultimate future product, but he was open to changing his mind on that too. You can whine about that anyway, but he's not tricking anyone. He has always been frank about this!
- sailingparrot 1y ago
- aeon_ai 1y agoI read Careless People recently. I don't think the author of that book is unbiased, and after some healthy debate with friends, imagine there are a number of different perspectives on the facts. But it seems clear that, well before it was public knowledge outside of the company, there was clearly visibility of and ignorance over harms being caused by the platform inside of it. Facebook (now Meta) turned human attention into a product. They optimized for engagement over wellbeing and knew that their platforms were amplifying division and did it anyway because the metrics looked good. It's funny, because I aspire to many of the same things cited in this vision -- helping realize the best in each individual, giving them more freedom, and critically, helping them be wise in a world that very clearly would prefer them not to be. But the vision is being pitched by the company that already knows too much about us and has consistently used that knowledge for extraction rather than empowerment.
- DanHulton 1y ago> The improvement is slow for now, but undeniable. Developing superintelligence is now in sight. Oh, is it now? So you know for a fact that intelligence comes from token prediction, do you, Mark? Look, multi-bit screwdrivers have been improving steadily as well. I've got one that stores all it's bits in the handle, and one with over three dozen bits in a handy carrying case! But they're never going to suddenly, magically become an ur-tool, capable of handling any task. They're just going to get better and better as screwdrivers. (Well, they make a handy hammer in a pinch, but that's using them off-spec. The analogy probably fits here, too, though.) My POINT, to be crystal clear, is that Mark is saying that A is getting better, so eventually it will turn into B. It's ludicrous on its face, and he deserves the ridicule he's getting in the comments here. But I also want to go one step further and maybe turn the mirror around a bit. There's also an odd tendency here to do a very similar thing: to observe critical limitations that LLM tools have, that they have always have, and that are very likely baked into the technology and science powering these tools, and then to do the same thing as Mark, to just wave our hands, and say "But I'm sure they'll figure it out/fix it/perfect it soon." I dunno, I don't see it. I think we're all holding incredible screwdrivers here, which are very impressive. Some people are using them to drive nails, which, okay, sure. But acting like a screwdriver will suddenly turn into precision calipers (and a saw, and a level, and...) if we just keep adding on more bits, I think that's just silly.
- tim333 1y agoThat's not really what he said.
- cootsnuck 1y agoIsn't it though? He's provided zero evidence to suggest otherwise. So of course we are all going to assume he's talking about the current, popular, SOTA architectures still as the foundational piece.
- tim333 1y agoNo it's not. >So you know for a fact that intelligence comes from token prediction, do you, Mark? He never said that for a start nor much of the other stuff. I mean I can accuse him of say pigs fly but it's kind of silly if he didn't say that. I mean it's like before powered flight someone says powered flight is coming that the critic say how can you claim steam engines will take off? It's kind of silly and about the same as the superintelligence won't happen because LLMs aren't very good argument.
- adrianbooth17 1y agoMeta's business model requires: - Maximum data extraction - Behavioral modification for profit - Attention capture and addiction maintenance "Personal superintelligence" serves all three perfectly while appearing to do the opposite.
- koakuma-chan 1y agoMeta is yet to release a competitive model.
- laweijfmvo 1y agoMeta has a lot of users (for better or worse). AFAIK they give away all the current “AI” features for free (via ads) like all of their products, right? That must take an enormous amount of compute to be able to offer all of their users the ability to generate AI Slop at any time… there’s no way they can continue to do that with anything close to a “super intelligence”, right? Do they have that much faith in ads?
- akomtu 1y agoIf Meta invents superhuman AI and Mark gets to own it, we'll effectively enter the era of Antichrist. Imagine a human as greedy, as capable and as hollow as Mark, but made 1000x smarter than anyone else on the planet? Corporations are kept in check by competition between them, they can't be too abusive, but this brittle balance will end if one of them creates AI.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago> If trends continue, then you'd expect people to spend less time in productivity software, and more time creating and connecting. Sorry, but Jevon's Paradox[1] returns yet again. If you make workers more efficient, then we won't be freed up to spend more time creating and connecting. There will be more work. Creating more efficient steam engines didn't reduce coal consumption, it just made there be more steam engines. The second order effects of efficiency don 't work the way we think they work. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- Henchman21 1y agoMeta has shown us that their goals are antithetical to healthy societies. The company should be broken up, its assets auctioned, its IP destroyed.
- polynomial 1y agoWhat phase of the AOL lifecycle is Meta currently in? (Seriously asking.)
- osti 1y agoLooks like no more open source models :( "We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. That said, superintelligence will raise novel safety concerns. We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Still, we believe that building a free society requires that we aim to empower people as much as possible."
- nashashmi 1y agoEquipment and hardware being used to do basic stuff like farming, clothing, and housing can become weaponized to both drown local industry with efficiently produced varieties and as carrot and stick to force countries to comply with globalist ideals (that seek to consolidate power into the hands of a few).
- sifar 1y ago>> an even more meaningful impact on our lives will likely come from everyone having a personal superintelligence that helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be. What has intelligence (let alone superintelligence) or lack of, got to do with the last two. All these discussions about AGI seems to have reduced what it means to be a human being to a token generator.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- amradio1989 1y agoMakes you wonder who owns the data that powers a "personal superintelligence that intimately knows all the details about you". It also makes you wonder what they do with all of that information. But surely this is altruism.
- tim333 1y agoJust to take the other side of most of the comments here, I mostly agree with Zuck. Superintelligence is on it's way and we will probably all have access in the same way we call all access ChatGPT and the like. I'm not sure how the "intersection of technology and how people live" will go but it's not a bad thing to work on. I'm not sure Meta is the one do to it though - glad to have other people working on it too.
- rockwindmemento 1y ago[dead]
- sandspar 1y agoYou can quibble about timelines and percentages and all that. But you gotta admit that this is a treat to watch. What a fun time to be alive.
- pbrum 1y agoWhat if superintelligence isn't even a thing? I was watching an interview with a Chinese-American specialist the other day (I'm sure it's been shared here on HN at some point) and she explained in the Chinese AI community they don't operate under the assumption that something such as AGI or superintelligence exists, and therefore don't work toward that goal. I'm sure people in this community can comment to a much more informed extent on this than I though
- fzzzy 1y agoDo we have narrow superintelligence in chess and go and jeopardy?
- rockwindmemento 1y ago[dead]
- graphitez 1y agoSuperintelligence is not in sight. Zuckerberg is either lying or he is delusional.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoWhat happened to the Metaverse?