Why Are Big Tech CEOs Writing Long Manifestos About AI? (bbc.com) 43
This week Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a 6,500 word open letter titled "The Future is for Everyone".
But the BBC is more interested in why big tech executives keep writing manifestos about AI: [Zuckerberg's] vision echoes what AI leaders have expressed in various forms: the product they are building is among the "most important technologies in history." Marc Andreessen, co-founder of early web titan Netscape, perhaps started this trend in 2023 with a 5,000-word essay he called "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto", which argued innovation was the way to solve life's problems...
As the International Monetary Fund warns AI could affect nearly 40% of jobs and worsen global financial inequality, Zuckerberg says he believes there will be an abundance of jobs in the future. "I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future." Never mind that Zuckerberg's Meta has cut 10% of its global workforce — about 8,000 jobs — as the company reorganizes to focus on AI.
Zuckerberg's manifesto is the latest to land in our social media feeds in an effort to put a positive spin on AI. In 2024, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI boss Sam Altman released a manifesto called "The Intelligence Age", a sweeping expression of optimism about the tech's potential... That same year, in a manifesto titled "Machines of Loving Grace", Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei touted the potential of AI to transform everything from healthcare to politics.
So what's going on with these tech executives' manifestos? Economics blogger Noah Smith suggested to the BBC "they all feel like it's such an important moment that it's incumbent upon them to do whatever they can to shape the direction that this technology is going." Although he does see some value in their engagement with important issues. "Should we open-source something that has the ability to kill humanity? If you don't take that seriously, you're just a fool."
But Rob Lalka, a business professor at Tulane University, had a different explanation for the BBC: Lalka said the timing of Zuckerberg's manifesto coincides with rising anger over AI's impact on everything from jobs to the environment.
And while tech journalists and academics might pore over them trying to glean nuggets of meaning, these executive manifestos are not necessarily landing with the general public. "They're trying to make the case that the positives will far outweigh some of those negatives that the public backlash is pointing out," he said. "But I think a lot of the reasons for optimism are still yet to be seen."
But the BBC is more interested in why big tech executives keep writing manifestos about AI: [Zuckerberg's] vision echoes what AI leaders have expressed in various forms: the product they are building is among the "most important technologies in history." Marc Andreessen, co-founder of early web titan Netscape, perhaps started this trend in 2023 with a 5,000-word essay he called "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto", which argued innovation was the way to solve life's problems...
As the International Monetary Fund warns AI could affect nearly 40% of jobs and worsen global financial inequality, Zuckerberg says he believes there will be an abundance of jobs in the future. "I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future." Never mind that Zuckerberg's Meta has cut 10% of its global workforce — about 8,000 jobs — as the company reorganizes to focus on AI.
Zuckerberg's manifesto is the latest to land in our social media feeds in an effort to put a positive spin on AI. In 2024, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI boss Sam Altman released a manifesto called "The Intelligence Age", a sweeping expression of optimism about the tech's potential... That same year, in a manifesto titled "Machines of Loving Grace", Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei touted the potential of AI to transform everything from healthcare to politics.
So what's going on with these tech executives' manifestos? Economics blogger Noah Smith suggested to the BBC "they all feel like it's such an important moment that it's incumbent upon them to do whatever they can to shape the direction that this technology is going." Although he does see some value in their engagement with important issues. "Should we open-source something that has the ability to kill humanity? If you don't take that seriously, you're just a fool."
But Rob Lalka, a business professor at Tulane University, had a different explanation for the BBC: Lalka said the timing of Zuckerberg's manifesto coincides with rising anger over AI's impact on everything from jobs to the environment.
And while tech journalists and academics might pore over them trying to glean nuggets of meaning, these executive manifestos are not necessarily landing with the general public. "They're trying to make the case that the positives will far outweigh some of those negatives that the public backlash is pointing out," he said. "But I think a lot of the reasons for optimism are still yet to be seen."
They are spending all that money (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
... and LLM might do a better job than Zuck. AI might not yet be as much of a sociopath.
Re: (Score:1)
Marc Andreessen, co-founder of early web titan Netscape, perhaps started this trend in 2023 with a 5,000-word essay he called "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto", which argued innovation was the way to solve life's problems...
He's right, innovation is the best way. But neither he nor Mark Zucklefuck or any of the other corrupt idiots is actually doing anything that even remotely qualifies as "innovation".
Why is Slashdot writing long articles about CEOs (Score:1)
... writing long articles about AI? Are all people bored currently?
LinkedIn Brainrot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
LinkedIn posting is officially dead.
Well, not the posting. The writing of the post.
If you are still manually typing out: ...You are wasting your most valuable asset: Time.
"I am thrilled to announce..."
"Here are 5 things I learned..."
"Agree?"
We have reached an era where an LLM can replicate the "LinkedIn Style" perfectly. The spacing, the emojis, the dramatic one-sentence paragraphs—it’s a solved problem.
The barrier to entry for posting has vanished.
So the question isn't "How do I write a post?"
T
It's pretty simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You entirely missed the most egregious error, AI does NOT have "the ability to kill humanity".
Giving software the ability to "kill humanity" is the crime,wiring AI up to it just identifies AI as the particular software. AI is NOT the ability for computers to perform operations, committing murder is one of those potential operations. The backlash AI receives is due to what the AI is wired to do (and how bad it is at doing it), no one dismisses the potential.
And let's be clear, the problem isn't the develop
Re: (Score:2)
AI isn't inherently bad, the system under which AI is being developed is. Capitalism commodifies everything, including humans... slavery is the logical end state of capitalism, commodifying not just the factory or the raw materials, but the worker themselves. In a non-capitalist society, it wouldn't matter that AI ingests and reuses creative output... creators are not beholden to capitalists in order to have food or housing or healthcare. In a non-capitalist society, AI would not be trained on winner-takes
This is how you should feel. (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporate executives often send similar messages to the droves of people they are laying off whenever they merge with another corporation. They tell everyone that the move is some sort of "greater good" and so everyone losing their job should be happy about how much better everything is getting for everyone else. They sometimes go so far as to imply that one is being unenlightened and selfish for being upset about losing their only income stream.
It's easy to say that when you are one of the ones at the top who receives only benefits. The ones who are wondering how they are going to keep their families fed, however, tend to react badly to this utter lack of empathy for their situation.
People might be willing to endure change and uncertainty for a technology that comes with great promise. But those same people will not be so eager to endure unemployment and starvation due to a technology that benefits primarily the wealthy elite. Saying the words "this benefits everyone" will not convince those who can no longer pay the rent.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Epstein class doesn't actually work (Score:5, Insightful)
Now get back to RTO and don't complain about your 90-minute commute.
Anthropic's most optimistic prediction ... (Score:2)
Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO)'s "Machines of Loving Grace" was the first of these, and if effect explains why others like Altman and Zuckerberg are chiming in.
Amodei's prediction:
1) AI will take ALL the jobs
2) Since people won't have any jobs, the government will have to provide UBI (universal basic income), aka food stamps
This is the most positive spin Amodei can put on the future that he is rushing to create, and not surprisingly people are not happy. The public increasingly see AI as an unwelcome technolo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - makes no sense to me either, but notable that this "you'll all be on UBI (government welfare)" is the best outcome he can think of.
It's because they can't sing (Score:2)
"Don't worry, be happy!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And to misquote someone else, will AI become the new "Opiate of the masses?"
Laying the runway for seeking a bailout... (Score:2)
It's because they know their end is near and are trying to paint a rosy picture of AI being a great thing for all of humanity. Once they have convinced everyone and more importantly the government about that, they can beg their way out of their impending financial mess.
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:3)
https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]
Tragedy of the Commons is a quandary where self-interest actions by many members creates a collective disaster for all. Previous economic depressions are one example. Zuckerberg is blinded by his self-interest, and I imagine the others are, too.
They don't accept the concept of equilibrium.
https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]
.
Our Benevolent Feudalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't believe it. This view was expressed in 1902 and never materialized.
Our Benevolent Feudalism by William J. Ghent 1902
https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo... [gutenberg.org]
Re: Our Benevolent Feudalism (Score:2)
Low part IQ bell curve (Score:3)
Adapt, sure! Let them leverage their capabilities with Ai! Uhm... what if they can't? Communicating with an llm takes cognitive skills. What if they are not the brightest? I know everybody on slashdot is on the far right side of the IQ bell curve, but plenty of people are on the far left. I am having a hard time imagining what their future is going to be. Especially when some form of cheap robot joins the playing field...
The real effects of AI (Score:4)
We need to distinguish between the theoretical effects that AI might have in the future, and the real effects it is actually having right now.
First the theoretical effects. On one hand the optimists promise to solve all the world's problems, from disease to poverty to climate change. On the other hand the pessimists warn it could destroy humanity. There are credible arguments on both sides and we should take both possibilities seriously, but also remember they're speculative and may not happen.
If a technology has a credible chance of solving the world's biggest problems, but also a credible chance of destroying humanity, should we really be rushing ahead to develop and deploy it as fast as possible? Or should we move more slowly and cautiously?
Next the real effects it's actually having right now. It's become clear that for most people, those are overwhelmingly negative. From the slop that's flooding the internet and drowning out legitimate content, to layoffs, to rising electricity prices, to skyrocketing prices for memory and storage. These things affect people in practical ways every day.
It's no wonder public opinion is increasingly negative about AI. That threatens the CEOs who've bet their companies on it. Of course they're trying to push a better narrative that serves their interests. And maybe the negative real world effects are invisible to them. It's not like they have to worry about getting layed off, or like it matters to them if their next phone costs 30% more than the last one.
"Don't forget me" (Score:2)
The Illusion of Empowerment :o (Score:5, Insightful)
The implications extend beyond economics and technology into the information environment itself. Meta’s systems routinely exclude, suppress, or deprioritise content deemed undesirable, effectively influencing how historical facts and political discourse are encountered. If information exclusively flows through AI filters shaped by corporate and political interests, the result is not empowerment but epistemic control.
Once AI systems become the primary intermediaries through which people access information, communicate, and make decisions, those who control the underlying infrastructure gain unprecedented power to shape what people see, know, and ultimately believe. Historical facts can become editable, dissent can become invisible, and “wrongthink” can be algorithmically excluded. Zuckerberg’s vision of personal superintelligence agents working “24/7 on your behalf” therefore becomes distinctly dystopian if those agents ultimately serve Meta’s commercial and political interests rather than the user’s autonomy.
citizens united for the AI era (Score:1)
Who are these people? (Score:2)
"Tech CEOs" generating praises for AI are all hard-working and extremely compassionate individuals who are careful and considerate and do whatever they can for the benefit of humanity first. They always follow the rules. They're wealthy because they're super smart. We should listen to them when they say this is the biggest opportunity since slavery and sugar cane.
Yeah. Sure.
Yeah, AI manifestos gave me acne to (Score:2)
"The Nerd Reich" by Gil Duran (Score:2)
Author is on a book tour, so I've heard a couple interviews with him. Based on those, I'd characterize Duran's perspective as "Worst likely case", i.e. it's a plausible outcome. What I don't know is whether the people who have the beliefs described in that book are as organized as the book says.
And for at least 5 years, I've been saying "Palantir is the most dangerous company in America."
The first CEO who (Score:1)
STFU will win
It's a bit too early for declarations like this. (Score:3)
the product they are building is among the "most important technologies in history."
That will actually be for history to decide.
Fuck You (Score:2)
"Should we open-source something that has the ability to kill humanity? If you don't take that seriously, you're just a fool."
Fuck you, asshole. Who are you or them to decide who gets that power? But, the power is pure fantasy anyway. DeepSeek and several others are open source/weights and nobody is dead. Seems like only fools making those SciFi assertions or attempting to make them realities.
Occam's Razor & Desperation (Score:3)
Simples explanations are usually the best.
CEOs are the ultimate salespeople, selling you their deam. All those manifestos are nothing more than an ultimate sales pitch.
Billions are being spent on something that is not bringing any significant returns so they must be in a panic mode. Why else bother a CEO for their opinion?
Re: Occam's Razor & Desperation (Score:2)
Ketamine? (Score:4, Funny)
How much of this drive to write tech manifestos stems from Ketamine or similar substances?
Wrong Question (Score:2)
That's not even the wrong question.
Should we connect untested random command generators to the Internet, build connectors between web hosts that allow command traffic to flow unimpeded, and set up our real world systems so that they can be controlled from web hosts?
YMMV. Personally speaking, if I was a "Chinese leader", I would quietly "disappear" the people who design and deve