Zuckerberg’s sweeping AI vision tests public trust

Mark Zuckerberg has laid out his most expansive case yet for putting powerful artificial intelligence into the hands of billions of people, arguing that widely available “personal superintelligence” can improve education, work, healthcare and creativity while preventing control of advanced AI from becoming concentrated among governments and a handful of companies.

The Meta chief executive’s essay, titled “The Future is for Everyone”, runs to more than 6,400 words and ranges from personalised tutors and AI lawyers to data centres, biological threats, surveillance, jobs and geopolitical competition. It presents an optimistic vision in which increasingly capable AI agents help individuals achieve goals that previously required substantial money, expertise or institutional support.

The scale and tone of the manifesto have also highlighted the widening gap between Silicon Valley’s confidence in artificial intelligence and public unease about how the technology is being deployed. Zuckerberg portrays technological diffusion as a safeguard against excessive concentration of power. Critics question whether making increasingly powerful models broadly accessible necessarily produces fairer outcomes or adequate protection from misuse.

Meta accompanied the essay with an open-weight AI push centred on Muse Glimmer, strengthening its challenge to companies including OpenAI and Anthropic. The strategy revives a longstanding distinction in the AI industry. Meta wants developers to have greater access to underlying models, while several competitors favour tighter control over the most sophisticated systems because of concerns involving cybersecurity, biological risks and other forms of misuse.

Zuckerberg argues that concentrating superintelligence among a limited group would leave everyone else at a disadvantage. His preferred alternative is widespread access to personal agents that understand their users, goals and interests. Such assistants could operate across devices, including Meta’s growing range of AI-enabled glasses.

Education is presented as one of the strongest examples. Zuckerberg envisages every student gaining access to a personalised tutor with expert-level knowledge and unlimited patience. Adults could use similar systems to acquire professional skills, languages and hobbies.

The proposition exposes a complication already confronting schools and universities. Generative AI can function as a tutor, but it can also complete essays, homework and assessments for students. Educators continue to struggle with distinguishing genuine student work from machine-generated material. The same technology can therefore expand educational access while weakening established methods of measuring learning.

Zuckerberg makes a similarly ambitious argument about law. If everyone possessed a highly capable AI legal adviser, he suggests, disparities created by differences in money and professional expertise could narrow. Yet inexpensive automated legal systems could also generate enormous quantities of complaints, claims and filings, potentially adding pressure to courts rather than simplifying access to justice.

Employment receives a more qualified treatment. Zuckerberg accepts that companies may become smaller as AI takes over more tasks and that workers will have to adapt. He nevertheless expects new businesses and occupations to emerge as individuals and small teams gain capabilities previously available only to large organisations.

That outlook mirrors a central disagreement surrounding generative AI. Supporters expect higher productivity to create new industries and expand economic output. Labour economists and policymakers are simultaneously examining the possibility that automation could eliminate or transform substantial numbers of administrative, technical and professional jobs before displaced workers can move into new occupations.

Meta’s infrastructure requirements create another tension. Training and operating increasingly capable models demands enormous computing capacity, electricity and data-centre investment. Zuckerberg advocates faster infrastructure construction while promising communities hosting Meta facilities greater economic benefits, including jobs, investment in public services and protection against higher energy costs. Meta is establishing a fund intended to support communities affected by its expansion.

His opposition to extensive regulation also carries a geopolitical argument. Zuckerberg warns that slowing US model releases could strengthen China’s position in the global AI competition. He supports some cooperation between AI developers and governments on cybersecurity testing but argues against regulatory structures that could delay technological deployment.

The manifesto arrives as technology executives increasingly publish lengthy statements setting out competing philosophies for artificial intelligence. The documents are partly attempts to shape regulation and partly declarations about the products their companies intend to build.

For Meta, the argument has an additional burden. The company is asking users and policymakers to trust it with technology designed to know considerably more about individual preferences, behaviour and objectives. Facebook and other social platforms have spent years facing disputes over privacy, political influence, content moderation and the effects of algorithmic systems.