Why people aren’t buying Mark Zuckerberg’s AI future
Why people aren’t buying Mark Zuckerberg’s AI future
为什么人们并不买账马克·扎克伯格的 AI 未来
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a 6,500 word essay this week declaring that “The Future is for Everyone” and painting an optimistic picture of a future powered by AI, where “everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about.” 本周，Meta 首席执行官马克·扎克伯格发表了一篇 6500 字的文章，宣称“未来属于每个人”，并描绘了一幅由人工智能驱动的乐观未来图景，即“每个人都将拥有一个能力超群的个人代理，它了解你、你的目标以及你所关心的一切。”
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Rebecca Bellan, and I discussed why not everyone is buying Zuckerberg’s vision — including our colleague Russell Brandom, who wrote that the manifesto is “exactly why people don’t like AI.” 在 TechCrunch 的《Equity》播客最新一期节目中，Kirsten Korosec、Rebecca Bellan 和我讨论了为什么并非所有人都买账扎克伯格的愿景——包括我们的同事 Russell Brandom，他写道，这份宣言“正是人们不喜欢人工智能的原因”。
Comparing Zuckerberg to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei (who spent the weekend pushing back against the idea that he’s an AI doomer), Rebecca said the Meta CEO seems to be positioning himself “almost like an anti-Dario.” The problem, however, is Zuckerberg and Meta’s history. 将扎克伯格与 Anthropic 首席执行官 Dario Amodei（他周末一直在反驳自己是“AI 末日论者”的说法）进行对比，Rebecca 表示，这位 Meta 首席执行官似乎将自己定位为“几乎是 Dario 的对立面”。然而，问题在于扎克伯格和 Meta 的过往历史。
“You look back to the social media days, [Zuckerberg] was saying that he wants to make sure that everyone has an outlet for talking to their friends and having a social network,” Rebecca said. “And what do we have instead? We have ragebaiting and advertisements, and not connection.” “回顾社交媒体时代，[扎克伯格] 当时说他想确保每个人都有一个与朋友交流和建立社交网络的渠道，”Rebecca 说道。“但我们最终得到了什么？我们得到的是煽动愤怒的内容和广告，而不是人与人之间的连接。”
Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. 请继续阅读我们对话的预览，内容经过删减和润色。
Rebecca Bellan: Cynically, I think that this is an attempt for Meta to win in a different way. They’re not winning in the frontier, closed-model space. They’re not necessarily even winning in the open space. But when it comes to personal empowerment, as Mark Zuckerberg talks about in his letter, “The Future Is for Everyone,” that’s where he’s trying to win. He’s trying to provide the models that people will use for their own personal AI on their own personal devices. Rebecca Bellan： 从愤世嫉俗的角度来看，我认为这是 Meta 试图以另一种方式获胜。他们在前沿闭源模型领域并没有胜出，甚至在开源领域也不一定占据优势。但正如马克·扎克伯格在《未来属于每个人》一文中所谈到的，在个人赋能方面，这正是他试图获胜的地方。他试图提供人们可以在自己的个人设备上用于个人 AI 的模型。
I think last year, when he published a [similar] “Futures for Everyone” letter, [the promise] was that a lot of that AI would go onto the glasses, the wearables, but it’s not really clear what the final hardware form factor for this would be, and I guess he’s like leaving it up to the individual to choose. So his idea is that you’re using [Meta’s new AI model] Glimmer for managing your schedule, drafting messages, organizing files, it’s always on, it can operate anytime, anywhere, with or without an internet connection. But then there is still Muse Spark, so that maintains a way for them to have some level of control over, still, its most capable models, and provide a revenue outlet for people who want to scale their compute, and people who want to like do larger projects, or companies that might want to do larger projects. 我认为去年他发表那篇[类似的]“未来属于每个人”文章时，[承诺]是很多 AI 将会应用在眼镜和可穿戴设备上，但目前还不清楚最终的硬件形态会是什么，我想他大概是把选择权留给了个人。所以他的想法是，你使用 [Meta 的新 AI 模型] Glimmer 来管理日程、起草信息、整理文件，它始终在线，可以随时随地运行，无论是否有互联网连接。但同时还有 Muse Spark，这让他们能够对最强大的模型保持一定程度的控制，并为那些想要扩展计算能力、想要进行更大项目的人，或者可能想要进行更大项目的公司提供收入渠道。
Anthony Ha: I imagine the part of the context here is also — Meta has made some very serious investments in AI, last year there [were] also all these stories about how much money they were trying to pay for AI scientists, but in terms of who we think of as the leading companies, the frontier labs, Meta doesn’t tend to come up in the conversation. Another way it doesn’t come up in the conversation is in, you know, what are the popular consumer AI chatbots? Certainly, people are interacting with Meta AI tools in Instagram, in Facebook, but it’s not a company that you think of when, “I’m going to go use my personal assistant.” Meta isn’t that yet, and so it feels, to a certain extent, this is an attempt to reposition them and try to claim space that they really haven’t been that successful at before. Is that fair? Anthony Ha： 我想这里的背景还包括——Meta 在 AI 领域进行了非常重大的投资，去年也有很多关于他们愿意花多少钱聘请 AI 科学家的报道，但就我们认为的领先公司或前沿实验室而言，Meta 往往不会出现在讨论中。另一个没有被提及的方面是，哪些是流行的消费级 AI 聊天机器人？当然，人们确实在 Instagram 和 Facebook 上与 Meta 的 AI 工具互动，但当你想到“我要去使用我的个人助理”时，Meta 并不是你首先想到的公司。Meta 还没做到这一点，所以某种程度上，这感觉像是他们试图重新定位自己，并试图占领他们之前并不成功的领域。这样说公平吗？
Rebecca: I think that is really fair to say. And I would take it with a grain of salt because Mark Zuckerberg loves to put out a vision of what his companies will do for people and how they will empower people. And so far, what that looks like for Meta — I mean, of course, Llama is great; it’s a great tool and open source, but I think that on a consumer level, how are people using Meta AI? Well, there’s like a lot of creepy-ass chatbots. My TLDR is: I think that [Zuckerberg’s] letter and his idea of personal empowerment is putting a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths because it’s him who’s saying it. Russell Brandom, our AI editor, wrote about this this week. You look back to the social media days, he was saying that he wants to make sure that everyone has an outlet for talking to their friends and having a social network. And what do we have instead? We have ragebaiting and advertisements, and not connection. Rebecca： 我认为这样说非常公平。但我会对此持保留态度，因为马克·扎克伯格喜欢描绘他的公司将为人们做什么以及如何赋能人们的愿景。到目前为止，这对 Meta 来说意味着什么——我的意思是，当然，Llama 很棒；它是一个很棒的开源工具，但在消费者层面，人们是如何使用 Meta AI 的呢？嗯，有很多令人毛骨悚然的聊天机器人。我的总结是：我认为 [扎克伯格的] 文章和他关于个人赋能的想法让很多人感到反感，因为说这话的人是他。我们的 AI 编辑 Russell Brandom 本周写到了这一点。回顾社交媒体时代，他说他想确保每个人都有一个与朋友交流和建立社交网络的渠道。但我们最终得到了什么？我们得到的是煽动愤怒的内容和广告，而不是人与人之间的连接。
Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, I think that the manifesto didn’t strike the right note for a lot of people. And to Russell’s point, which he makes in this column, is it’s what’s making people hate AI or hate on AI — because, to your point, it is coming from Zuckerberg, and I do think also it feels very Pollyannish in a way. He’s put these thoughts out there in the past, and it really doesn’t provide what I think is a more realistic picture, but instead casts AI as this great tool for humanity. That might be the case, but there will also be extreme costs to that, and I think that’s why the negative reaction to it has been so widespread. Kirsten Korosec： 是的，我认为这份宣言并没有引起很多人的共鸣。正如 Russell 在专栏中所指出的，这正是导致人们讨厌 AI 或抨击 AI 的原因——因为正如你所说，这话出自扎克伯格之口，而且我也认为这在某种程度上显得非常盲目乐观。他过去也曾表达过这些想法，但这并没有提供我认为更现实的图景，反而将 AI 描绘成人类的伟大工具。这或许是事实，但这也将带来极高的代价，我认为这就是为什么对此的负面反应如此广泛的原因。
Rebecca: It feels like he’s positioning himself as almost like an anti-Dario. I don’t know. There’s a lot of talk among the frontier labs: “We’re pacing the frontier, pulling back, focus on safety. We need to slow down development.” They’re not doing any of that, of course, but they’re talking about it, and because of all these recent cybersecurity incidents that we’ve had. Whereas Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is like, “No, no, we do not slow down. We cannot afford to give an inch to China, and slowing down would only hurt the individual, who can be empowered by this technology.” But I mean, I was like, “Oh, maybe I’ll try to download Muse Glimmer and see what I can do with it.” Can I download it to my MacBook? No. You need specific hardware. I forget what the hardware is — it’s not actually that accessible to the average person. Rebecca： 感觉他几乎将自己定位为 Dario 的对立面。我不知道。前沿实验室之间有很多讨论：“我们正在控制前沿进度，撤退，专注于安全。我们需要放慢开发速度。”当然，他们并没有真正这样做，但他们确实在谈论这些，因为我们最近发生了所有这些网络安全事件。而另一方面，马克·扎克伯格却说：“不，不，我们不能放慢速度。我们不能在对华竞争中退让分毫，放慢速度只会伤害那些本可以被这项技术赋能的个人。”但我的意思是，我当时想，“哦，也许我会试着下载 Muse Glimmer 看看能用它做什么。”我能把它下载到我的 MacBook 上吗？不能。你需要特定的硬件。我忘了是什么硬件了——它实际上对普通人来说并不那么容易获得。
Kirsten: It’s not for everyone. Not yet. Kirsten： 它并不适合所有人。至少现在还不是。
Anthony: The one positive thing I will say for this very long manifesto — 6,500 words, longer than almost anything that’s been published on TechCrunch — is that there is one s Anthony： 关于这篇超长的宣言——6500 字，比 TechCrunch 上发表的几乎任何文章都要长——我唯一要说的积极一点是，其中有一个 s