Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

This 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.

> 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-superinte...

> 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.

Facebook / 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.

What 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

>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.

Reads 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.

"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.

I 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.

If 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.

Looks 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."

Meta'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.