He's definitely a messenger of something but I'm not sure I can speak its name.
"A narrow head, bulging, watery blue eyes that seemed never to wink, a flat nose, a receding forehead and chin, and singularly undeveloped ears. His long, thick lip and coarse-pored, greyish cheeks seemed almost beardless except for some sparse yellow hairs that straggled and curled in irregular patches . ."
The reason those two adopted doom marketing in the first place was because we're so used to CEOs making exclusively positive, dangerously optimistic claims about the future. By making a rare exception to that, they got a media bump (even though whether the tools benefit humanity is a separate question to whether they're powerful/profitable).
All Zuck is doing is reverting to the mean, which is fine for him to do because his company has no AI strategy and is not competitive with the others. IF Meta succeeds in AI, it will be because they don't need it to be profitable, it can be free and saccharine and toxically positive so long as it makes it slightly harder for people to stop watching their ads.
A better messenger may be necessary to get this message across.
He's definitely a messenger of something but I'm not sure I can speak its name.
"A narrow head, bulging, watery blue eyes that seemed never to wink, a flat nose, a receding forehead and chin, and singularly undeveloped ears. His long, thick lip and coarse-pored, greyish cheeks seemed almost beardless except for some sparse yellow hairs that straggled and curled in irregular patches . ."
HPL, "Shadow over Innsmouth"
The message is a lot better than what Amodei and Altman are pushing at least.
The reason those two adopted doom marketing in the first place was because we're so used to CEOs making exclusively positive, dangerously optimistic claims about the future. By making a rare exception to that, they got a media bump (even though whether the tools benefit humanity is a separate question to whether they're powerful/profitable).
All Zuck is doing is reverting to the mean, which is fine for him to do because his company has no AI strategy and is not competitive with the others. IF Meta succeeds in AI, it will be because they don't need it to be profitable, it can be free and saccharine and toxically positive so long as it makes it slightly harder for people to stop watching their ads.