"As profound as the abundance produced by AI may one day be, 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. Meta's vision is to bring personal superintelligence to everyone.... 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 of its output. At Meta, we believe that people pursuing their individual aspirations is how we have always made progress expanding prosperity, science, health, and culture. This will be increasingly important in the future as well.... Personal devices like glasses that understand our context because they can see what we see, hear what we hear, and interact with us throughout the day will become our primary computing devices.... Meta believes strongly in building personal superintelligence that empowers everyone...."

From Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto at Meta. 

If you want the "personal" touch, here's the purported person, Mark Zuckerberg, interfacing with the camera to explain how personal the Meta approach to AI is going to be:

Today Mark shared Meta’s vision for the future of personal superintelligence for everyone.
Read his full letter here: https://t.co/2p68g36KMj pic.twitter.com/Hpzf77jAiG

— AI at Meta (@AIatMeta) July 30, 2025

AND: Speaking of eyeglasses that understand and facilitate your personal agenda... here's the ad that was served up to me in the very next thing that I read, "Virginia Giuffre’s Family Was Shocked That Trump Described Her as 'Stolen'/The siblings of one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent accusers wonder what the president knows":

"Some of you might decide that this place isn't for you, and that self-selection is OK with me. Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here."

Said Mark Zuckerberg, quoted in "Mark Zuckerberg Just Told Facebook Employees to Quit. He Missed the Most Important Point/In a call with employees, Facebook's founder tried to rally the troops" (Inc.).

"It's really important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying, so they can make their own judgments. And, you know, I don't think that a private company should be censoring politicians or news."

Said Mark Zuckerberg, wisely, quoted in "Zuckerberg on allowing political ads: 'People should be able to judge for themselves'" (The Hill).

I'm only blogging this because I see it's controversial. He's getting a lot of pushback, but he stood his ground, even as the interviewer challenged him with the same 2 ideas that I always see: 1. When people pay to get their message out, it should be different, and 2. If messages are false, it should be different.

You've all been scraped.

Great headline and photo choice by Drudge.




He's linking to "Zuckerberg says most Facebook users should assume they have had their public info scraped/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a call to reporters that users who had a specific search functionality turned on should 'assume' that their public profile has been scraped" (CNBC):

"We've seen some scraping," CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a call with reporters. "I would assume if you had that setting turned on that someone at some point has access to your public information in some way," he said.

I'll bet Zuckerberg felt he was saying something mellow, not Orwellian at all. There's just "some scraping" and only "if you had that setting turned on" and — just for thought purposes — you should "assume" — because it's possible.

The setting Zuckerberg referred to is one where users let other users search for them by e-mail address or phone number instead of by name.

Do you know if you had that turned on?

ADDED: I just went to Facebook and tried to figure out if I had that setting turned on, and I couldn't find it. I can see that I put my phone number in there, and I suspect they required me to give a phone number to get an account. I don't remember. But, you know, in the old days, we all had landlines and the phone company was the phone company. You had to use The Phone Company, and it delivered a phone book that had everyone's name and number in it (unless you paid them extra to be "unlisted").

IN THE COMMENTS: Bob Boyd sees the word within the word: "Not just scraped, gang-scraped."

"After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea."

"Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it. This is too important an issue to be dismissive. But the data we have has always shown that our broader impact -- from giving people a voice to enabling candidates to communicate directly to helping millions of people vote -- played a far bigger role in this election. We will continue to work to build a community for all people. We will do our part to defend against nation states attempting to spread misinformation and subvert elections. We'll keep working to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections around the world, and to ensure our community is a platform for all ideas and force for good in democracy."

Writes Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, receiving and defending against and proving the effectiveness of the hit he took from Donald Trump yesterday. Zuckerberg doesn't link to or embed the tweet. It was this:

Facebook was always anti-Trump.The Networks were always anti-Trump hence,Fake News, @nytimes(apologized) & @WaPo were anti-Trump. Collusion?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2017

Whether Facebook was really anti-Trump or not, it was useful to Trump to push it back in Twitterish simplicity because he has so many powerful antagonists who are leaning on Facebook to sacrifice whatever ideals of neutrality and freedom of speech that it may have. I hope Facebook solidifies, preserves, and extends its neutrality and freedom values, and with that end in mind, I appreciate what I think is the effectiveness of Trump's absurdly abrupt tweet.

The question "Collusion?" is very funny, because "collusion" is a key word in the muck of charges about the Russian influence on the campaign. A free-wheeling "collusion" suspicion works as a satire of the Russia-related collusion talk. And it makes us wonder, what's so bad about collusion? Are these different sets of people not supposed to act in pursuit of the same goal, not supposed to talk with each other at all, not supposed to notice what each other is doing and figure out how to do things that coordinate?

Mark Zuckerberg is in Iowa — running for President? — and I'm scrutinizing the the rhetoric.

"I'm visiting small towns in Iowa, and just stopped in Wilton, population 2,800," says Zuckerberg, presumably somewhere on the path to running for President. He seems to be wondering why people even live in Wilton, Iowa. I mean, his theme is economic mobility demands geographic mobility. Boldface added:

Research on economic mobility shows that your ability and willingness to move for better opportunity often determines whether your quality of life will be better than your parents'. In many places, people are less likely to move, and that contributes to less upwards economic mobility.

However, in many places in Iowa and across the Midwest, people are raised with values that lead them to be more likely to move to other places for college or jobs, and therefore have greater upwards mobility...

The people I met in Wilton shared these values around mobility....

Wilton is doing better than some other towns in Iowa, and Zuckerberg met some people in Wilton who'd moved to Wilton from somewhere else in Iowa. Zuckerberg — who's lived his life in the Northeast and northern California — has found a way to say Honey, how come you don't move?* to Iowa people without seeming to reject Iowa. But Iowans better at least be willing to move somewhere else in Iowa if they want to escape blame for your downward mobility.

In Z's political rhetoric, willingness to blame the individual is expressed in the positive: You people of the Midwest have values. Your values will get you moving economically, because your values will make you face up to the reality that you need to mobilize out of the Midwest to a thriving economic hotspot like Wilton, Iowa.

I'm making a new tag: Zuckerberg rhetoric. I only make a special "rhetoric" tag for a person when I'm seriously following a run for President and I expect a lot of material.

By the way, Mark Zuckerberg is only 33 years old, not old enough yet to be President, but old enough to run. Anybody who wants to support him will have to give up the argument that it was ridiculous for Trump to think he could begin a political career with the office of President and that a lifetime of experience in business isn't transferable to the presidency. (And Zuckerberg is less than half Trump's age, and his career in business is only 13 years long, and Trump had half a century in business.)
______________________

* The italicized words are the last line of Bob Dylan's "On the Road Again."