Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

UPDATE: Meta has launched Muse Image, its new AI image generator, bringing advanced image creation and editing. So how did a college project become one of the world's most powerful tech companies, and did Mark Zuckerberg betray his own friend?🤔 Success came with controversy. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, along...

TruthTrumpPost's profile picture

Donald J Trump Posts TruthSocial

679,913 subscribers

51,410 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Early Facebook investor and Zynga founder Mark Pincus (mark pincus) vividly recalls the first time he met founder Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg). "I was lucky enough that he [Napster founder Sean Parker] decided to bring Zuckerberg in my office when they were doing their very first pre-seed round or whatever it would be called today, but they raised $500,000 from Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman (Reid Hoffman) and me. And he came in and he was wearing those Hawaiian flip flops and basketball shorts. And he had his feet up on my conference table and handed me a card that said "I'm CEO, bitch." He was just having fun, did not care and was not looking to impress me in any way. And I was really impressed," Pincus told me in a new drop of my Power Players podcast on Yahoo Finance. From that meeting in the early 2000s, Pincus would go on to have lunch regularly with Zuckerberg as Facebook and Zynga's growth were accelerating at breakneck speeds. Full Watch/Listen 📈Yahoo Finance: 🎙️Spotify: 🎧Apple Music: 🔊Amazon:
1:59

Early Facebook investor and Zynga founder Mark Pincus (mark pincus) vividly recalls the first time he met founder Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg). "I was lucky enough that he [Napster founder Sean Parker] decided to bring Zuckerberg in my office when they were doing their very first pre-seed round or whatever it would be called today, but they raised $500,000 from Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman (Reid Hoffman) and me. And he came in and he was wearing those Hawaiian flip flops and basketball shorts. And he had his feet up on my conference table and handed me a card that said "I'm CEO, bitch." He was just having fun, did not care and was not looking to impress me in any way. And I was really impressed," Pincus told me in a new drop of my Power Players podcast on Yahoo Finance. From that meeting in the early 2000s, Pincus would go on to have lunch regularly with Zuckerberg as Facebook and Zynga's growth were accelerating at breakneck speeds. Full Watch/Listen 📈Yahoo Finance: 🎙️Spotify: 🎧Apple Music: 🔊Amazon:

Brian Sozzi

20,695 views • 1 month ago

Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg) on Muse, Meta's personal AI agent I recently sat down with Zuckerberg for episode two of the Sources podcast. We go deep on Muse, Meta's new (and, in my experience over the last few days, very capable) agent that comes with its own virtual machine and can do much more than a chatbot. Zuck, in fact, is confident that Muse will pay for itself by making people money. We also discuss his views on the data center backlash, his concerns about the concentration of power in AI, Meta's recent youth-safety settlement, privacy concerns about Meta's smart glasses, and more. Timestamps: 00:00 Zuckerberg’s Vision for AI 08:34 Data Centers, Jobs and Local Communities 15:03 Why Meta Is Building Personal Superintelligence 19:14 How Zuckerberg Uses Muse 25:00 Muse Pricing and Business Model 30:31 Privacy and Security for Personal Agents 41:06 Who Will Win the Personal AI Agent Market? 44:31 Rebuilding Meta’s AI Lab 54:09 AI Safety and Working With Government 01:01:51 Smart Glasses and Privacy 01:05:50 Teen Safety and Social Media Limits Thanks to the show's premier sponsors: Granola, Mercury, and Atlassian
1:10:10

Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg) on Muse, Meta's personal AI agent I recently sat down with Zuckerberg for episode two of the Sources podcast. We go deep on Muse, Meta's new (and, in my experience over the last few days, very capable) agent that comes with its own virtual machine and can do much more than a chatbot. Zuck, in fact, is confident that Muse will pay for itself by making people money. We also discuss his views on the data center backlash, his concerns about the concentration of power in AI, Meta's recent youth-safety settlement, privacy concerns about Meta's smart glasses, and more. Timestamps: 00:00 Zuckerberg’s Vision for AI 08:34 Data Centers, Jobs and Local Communities 15:03 Why Meta Is Building Personal Superintelligence 19:14 How Zuckerberg Uses Muse 25:00 Muse Pricing and Business Model 30:31 Privacy and Security for Personal Agents 41:06 Who Will Win the Personal AI Agent Market? 44:31 Rebuilding Meta’s AI Lab 54:09 AI Safety and Working With Government 01:01:51 Smart Glasses and Privacy 01:05:50 Teen Safety and Social Media Limits Thanks to the show's premier sponsors: Granola, Mercury, and Atlassian

Alex Heath

250,452 views • 13 days ago

Mark Zuckerberg just described the obsolescence of every institution on Earth and delivered it like a product update. Zuckerberg: “I just think in the future almost everyone is gonna have the power of a 10,000-person organization.” He did not say better tools. He did not say smarter apps. He said the full cognitive output of ten thousand human beings. Packaged into a product. Handed to one person. That is not an upgrade. That is the end of the reason human beings organize at all. Companies exist because one brain is not enough. Governments exist because coordination requires hierarchy. Universities exist because knowledge demands infrastructure. Every institution ever built was a workaround for the same limitation. No single person could do it alone. Zuckerberg is telling you that limitation is about to disappear. The 500-person startup becomes one founder and an AI stack. The law firm becomes one attorney and a system that never sleeps. The hospital becomes one doctor carrying every specialist in their pocket. That is not speculation. That is a deployment schedule. And the man writing it runs a 70,000-person company. He employs 70,000 people and just told the world one person will soon need none of them. That is not a prediction. That is a confession from the man who will be first to act on it. But the part nobody is discussing matters more. This technology does not land on everyone equally. It lands first on the people who already command 10,000-person organizations. Zuckerberg does not get the power of 10,000 people. He already has that. He gets the power of 10,000 organizations. Every revolution in history was sold as liberation. The printing press was supposed to democratize knowledge. It built media empires. The internet was supposed to democratize commerce. It built trillion-dollar platforms. The tool always arrives as liberation. It always settles as leverage. And leverage always consolidates upward. Zuckerberg is not wrong about the capability. One person will do what ten thousand once did. But the question nobody is asking is the only one that matters. If everyone wields the output of 10,000 people, what is a single person actually worth? And then Zuckerberg answered his own question without realizing it. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here?” He meant it as a case for AI. That is the most brutal thing a CEO has ever said about the people who work for him.
0:59

Mark Zuckerberg just described the obsolescence of every institution on Earth and delivered it like a product update. Zuckerberg: “I just think in the future almost everyone is gonna have the power of a 10,000-person organization.” He did not say better tools. He did not say smarter apps. He said the full cognitive output of ten thousand human beings. Packaged into a product. Handed to one person. That is not an upgrade. That is the end of the reason human beings organize at all. Companies exist because one brain is not enough. Governments exist because coordination requires hierarchy. Universities exist because knowledge demands infrastructure. Every institution ever built was a workaround for the same limitation. No single person could do it alone. Zuckerberg is telling you that limitation is about to disappear. The 500-person startup becomes one founder and an AI stack. The law firm becomes one attorney and a system that never sleeps. The hospital becomes one doctor carrying every specialist in their pocket. That is not speculation. That is a deployment schedule. And the man writing it runs a 70,000-person company. He employs 70,000 people and just told the world one person will soon need none of them. That is not a prediction. That is a confession from the man who will be first to act on it. But the part nobody is discussing matters more. This technology does not land on everyone equally. It lands first on the people who already command 10,000-person organizations. Zuckerberg does not get the power of 10,000 people. He already has that. He gets the power of 10,000 organizations. Every revolution in history was sold as liberation. The printing press was supposed to democratize knowledge. It built media empires. The internet was supposed to democratize commerce. It built trillion-dollar platforms. The tool always arrives as liberation. It always settles as leverage. And leverage always consolidates upward. Zuckerberg is not wrong about the capability. One person will do what ten thousand once did. But the question nobody is asking is the only one that matters. If everyone wields the output of 10,000 people, what is a single person actually worth? And then Zuckerberg answered his own question without realizing it. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here?” He meant it as a case for AI. That is the most brutal thing a CEO has ever said about the people who work for him.

Dustin

54,061 views • 4 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg to new-hire Aditya Agarwal : “If I can build Facebook you can build a search engine” Aditya recalls starting at Facebook in 2005. A few weeks into his new role, Mark Zuckerberg comes up to him and suggests he build a search engine: “When people come to Facebook, the first thing they want to do is search for people.” Aditya’s first reaction was that search was a really important thing to get right and he had never built a search engine - wouldn’t it make more sense to just hire somebody from Google or Yahoo to do it? Mark replied: “If I can build Facebook, you can build a search engine.” And he was right - Aditya did end up building search for Facebook. This interaction also left a lasting impression on Aditya: “All of us can build whatever we put our minds to. And this is the culture that for me still defines Facebook - there is this hacker, can-do, total-ownership culture. If I could tell every startup in the world to take one thing, it would be you can do whatever you want as long as you put your mind to it. It’s probably easier than you think.” Video source: South Park Commons (2024)
1:13

Mark Zuckerberg to new-hire Aditya Agarwal : “If I can build Facebook you can build a search engine” Aditya recalls starting at Facebook in 2005. A few weeks into his new role, Mark Zuckerberg comes up to him and suggests he build a search engine: “When people come to Facebook, the first thing they want to do is search for people.” Aditya’s first reaction was that search was a really important thing to get right and he had never built a search engine - wouldn’t it make more sense to just hire somebody from Google or Yahoo to do it? Mark replied: “If I can build Facebook, you can build a search engine.” And he was right - Aditya did end up building search for Facebook. This interaction also left a lasting impression on Aditya: “All of us can build whatever we put our minds to. And this is the culture that for me still defines Facebook - there is this hacker, can-do, total-ownership culture. If I could tell every startup in the world to take one thing, it would be you can do whatever you want as long as you put your mind to it. It’s probably easier than you think.” Video source: South Park Commons (2024)

Startup Archive

136,570 views • 6 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg asked himself why Google, Microsoft and Yahoo never built Facebook when all three already had a version of it. Zuckerberg: “Large companies are slow and they lack conviction.” The idea was never scarce. Friendster came first. MySpace came first. It sat in plain view of everyone with the means to build it. Zuckerberg: “We were like a ragtag group of children.” Children against serious engineers, serious money, and hundreds of millions of users already in hand. They won because they committed before the answer was proven. Everyone else needed it proven first. Zuckerberg: “People doubt new ideas before they come to fruition.” Then he lists the doubts in the order they arrived. Zuckerberg: “It’s just like this college kid thing.” Small enough to dismiss without doing any work. Zuckerberg: “Maybe not college kids, but it’s probably a fad.” The size stopped being arguable, so the clock became the objection. Zuckerberg: “Maybe it seems like it’s going to be around for a while, but it’s probably not going to make money.” The clock stopped being arguable, so the money became the objection. Zuckerberg: “It’s making money, but the switch to mobile is going to be pretty hard.” The money stopped being arguable, so execution became the last thing left to doubt. Zuckerberg: “The companies had lost their advantage.” That ladder is a countdown. Every objection abandoned moves the thing one rung closer to obvious, and your runway is the distance between the objection people are using today and the final one. AI is on the same ladder. It was a toy. Then it hallucinated too much. Then it was not profitable. Then it was a bubble. Then it was about to plateau. The first rungs are already gone. Zuckerberg needed servers he could not afford and years to reach anyone. That infrastructure is now a monthly bill. Intelligence that did not exist at any price a decade ago answers to anyone who knows what to ask. Distribution to the world is a login. Everything that made those companies untouchable now costs less than rent. And most people are still waiting for permission. Every generation gets a narrow stretch where the rules about who is allowed to build have not been written yet. Almost everyone spends it waiting for proof it is real, and the proof only arrives once it has closed. Everyone reaches the same conclusion eventually. The only thing ever distributed unevenly is when. By the time it is obvious, the position is taken. You do not need a committee, a credential, or certainty. Certainty is only ever issued once it is worth nothing. Start while the people holding every advantage are still deciding whether this counts.
1:17

Mark Zuckerberg asked himself why Google, Microsoft and Yahoo never built Facebook when all three already had a version of it. Zuckerberg: “Large companies are slow and they lack conviction.” The idea was never scarce. Friendster came first. MySpace came first. It sat in plain view of everyone with the means to build it. Zuckerberg: “We were like a ragtag group of children.” Children against serious engineers, serious money, and hundreds of millions of users already in hand. They won because they committed before the answer was proven. Everyone else needed it proven first. Zuckerberg: “People doubt new ideas before they come to fruition.” Then he lists the doubts in the order they arrived. Zuckerberg: “It’s just like this college kid thing.” Small enough to dismiss without doing any work. Zuckerberg: “Maybe not college kids, but it’s probably a fad.” The size stopped being arguable, so the clock became the objection. Zuckerberg: “Maybe it seems like it’s going to be around for a while, but it’s probably not going to make money.” The clock stopped being arguable, so the money became the objection. Zuckerberg: “It’s making money, but the switch to mobile is going to be pretty hard.” The money stopped being arguable, so execution became the last thing left to doubt. Zuckerberg: “The companies had lost their advantage.” That ladder is a countdown. Every objection abandoned moves the thing one rung closer to obvious, and your runway is the distance between the objection people are using today and the final one. AI is on the same ladder. It was a toy. Then it hallucinated too much. Then it was not profitable. Then it was a bubble. Then it was about to plateau. The first rungs are already gone. Zuckerberg needed servers he could not afford and years to reach anyone. That infrastructure is now a monthly bill. Intelligence that did not exist at any price a decade ago answers to anyone who knows what to ask. Distribution to the world is a login. Everything that made those companies untouchable now costs less than rent. And most people are still waiting for permission. Every generation gets a narrow stretch where the rules about who is allowed to build have not been written yet. Almost everyone spends it waiting for proof it is real, and the proof only arrives once it has closed. Everyone reaches the same conclusion eventually. The only thing ever distributed unevenly is when. By the time it is obvious, the position is taken. You do not need a committee, a credential, or certainty. Certainty is only ever issued once it is worth nothing. Start while the people holding every advantage are still deciding whether this counts.

Dustin

72,393 views • 1 month ago

Mark Zuckerberg in 2004: The Interview That Captured Facebook's Humble Beginning A 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg sat down for an interview in 2004 to explain his new project. What he described sounds almost quaint compared to what it became. When asked the simple question, "What is the Facebook exactly?" Zuckerberg gave an answer that reveals just how modest the original vision was: "It's an online directory that connects people through universities and colleges through their social networks there. You sign on, you make a profile about yourself by answering some questions, entering some information such as your concentration or major at school, contact information about phone numbers, instant messaging screen names, anything you want to tell, interests, what books you like, movies, and most importantly, who your friends are." Notice the framing. Not a platform. Not a network. A "directory". He continues, describing the experience in the most casual terms: "And then you can browse around and see who people's friends are and just check out people's online identities and see how people portray themselves and just find some interesting information about people." But the most striking moment comes when the interviewer asks where he thinks the product is headed. Zuckerberg's response: "Well, it's impossible to tell. When we first launched, we were hoping for, you know, maybe 400, 500 people. Harvard didn't have a Facebook, so that's the gap that we were trying to fill. And now we're at 100,000 people. So, who knows where we're going next." Read that again. The original goal was 400 to 500 users. Just enough to fill a gap at Harvard. By the time of this interview, they'd already hit 100,000, and even then, Zuckerberg didn't claim to know what was coming. He admitted "it's impossible to tell." His near-term ambition was equally grounded: "We're hoping to have many more universities by the fall, hopefully over a 100 or 200. And from there, we're going to launch a bunch of site applications which should keep people coming back to the site and maybe you can make something cool." "Maybe you can make something cool." That's how the founder of what would become a multi-billion-user global platform described his roadmap in 2004.
1:11

Mark Zuckerberg in 2004: The Interview That Captured Facebook's Humble Beginning A 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg sat down for an interview in 2004 to explain his new project. What he described sounds almost quaint compared to what it became. When asked the simple question, "What is the Facebook exactly?" Zuckerberg gave an answer that reveals just how modest the original vision was: "It's an online directory that connects people through universities and colleges through their social networks there. You sign on, you make a profile about yourself by answering some questions, entering some information such as your concentration or major at school, contact information about phone numbers, instant messaging screen names, anything you want to tell, interests, what books you like, movies, and most importantly, who your friends are." Notice the framing. Not a platform. Not a network. A "directory". He continues, describing the experience in the most casual terms: "And then you can browse around and see who people's friends are and just check out people's online identities and see how people portray themselves and just find some interesting information about people." But the most striking moment comes when the interviewer asks where he thinks the product is headed. Zuckerberg's response: "Well, it's impossible to tell. When we first launched, we were hoping for, you know, maybe 400, 500 people. Harvard didn't have a Facebook, so that's the gap that we were trying to fill. And now we're at 100,000 people. So, who knows where we're going next." Read that again. The original goal was 400 to 500 users. Just enough to fill a gap at Harvard. By the time of this interview, they'd already hit 100,000, and even then, Zuckerberg didn't claim to know what was coming. He admitted "it's impossible to tell." His near-term ambition was equally grounded: "We're hoping to have many more universities by the fall, hopefully over a 100 or 200. And from there, we're going to launch a bunch of site applications which should keep people coming back to the site and maybe you can make something cool." "Maybe you can make something cool." That's how the founder of what would become a multi-billion-user global platform described his roadmap in 2004.

History Nerd

10,488 views • 4 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg just described the minimum viable business for the next decade. A fourth item made the checklist. Zuckerberg: “Every business, just like they have a website, and a phone number, and an email address, is also going to have an AI.” Website. Phone number. Email address. AI agent. That is not a prediction. That is a new baseline. Twenty years ago, not having a website was a choice. Then it stopped being one. Nobody scheduled that transition. The same filter is back. Running faster this time. A business without an AI agent handling sales, support, and customer interaction will not look outdated. It will look abandoned. Its competitor’s agent responds in two seconds. Knows every customer by name. And while it’s handling yours, it’s handling ten thousand others. You do not outwork that. You do not outspend it. You just lose to it. But Zuckerberg went somewhere most tech CEOs refuse to go. He picked a side in the debate most CEOs avoid entirely. Zuckerberg: “Do you want a future where you’re interacting with kind of one system for everything? Or do you want one where a lot of different people are building a lot of different AIs?” One AI controlled by one company. Or millions of AIs built by millions of people. Centralized intelligence. Or distributed intelligence. Zuckerberg chose distributed. Zuckerberg: “What open source does is it makes it so everyone can take and modify the model and build stuff on top of it. Which is different from the kind of closed and centralized approach.” The closed model makes every business a tenant. You rent intelligence on someone else’s terms. At someone else’s price. Inside someone else’s guardrails. The open model makes every business an owner. You modify the model. You deploy it your way. You build equity in your own system with every iteration. That gap widens quietly. Then it becomes permanent. The tenant pays more for less control every year. The owner pulls further ahead every cycle. One is a subscription. The other is infrastructure. Then Zuckerberg described the part most people have not thought about yet. Zuckerberg: “A lot of creators will have their own AIs. It’s like a richer world when there’s a diversity of different things.” Your favorite creator will have an AI trained on everything they have ever made. Available to millions of people simultaneously. Responding in real time while the creator sleeps. That is the difference between a brand that scales with your waking hours and one that scales with compute. One has a ceiling. The other does not. Zuckerberg is not betting on one model that governs everything. He is betting on billions of specialized AIs, each built by the person closest to the problem it solves. The companies still debating whether to adopt AI are not having the wrong conversation. They are standing in a room where the meeting ended an hour ago. The checklist updated. They did not.
0:58

Mark Zuckerberg just described the minimum viable business for the next decade. A fourth item made the checklist. Zuckerberg: “Every business, just like they have a website, and a phone number, and an email address, is also going to have an AI.” Website. Phone number. Email address. AI agent. That is not a prediction. That is a new baseline. Twenty years ago, not having a website was a choice. Then it stopped being one. Nobody scheduled that transition. The same filter is back. Running faster this time. A business without an AI agent handling sales, support, and customer interaction will not look outdated. It will look abandoned. Its competitor’s agent responds in two seconds. Knows every customer by name. And while it’s handling yours, it’s handling ten thousand others. You do not outwork that. You do not outspend it. You just lose to it. But Zuckerberg went somewhere most tech CEOs refuse to go. He picked a side in the debate most CEOs avoid entirely. Zuckerberg: “Do you want a future where you’re interacting with kind of one system for everything? Or do you want one where a lot of different people are building a lot of different AIs?” One AI controlled by one company. Or millions of AIs built by millions of people. Centralized intelligence. Or distributed intelligence. Zuckerberg chose distributed. Zuckerberg: “What open source does is it makes it so everyone can take and modify the model and build stuff on top of it. Which is different from the kind of closed and centralized approach.” The closed model makes every business a tenant. You rent intelligence on someone else’s terms. At someone else’s price. Inside someone else’s guardrails. The open model makes every business an owner. You modify the model. You deploy it your way. You build equity in your own system with every iteration. That gap widens quietly. Then it becomes permanent. The tenant pays more for less control every year. The owner pulls further ahead every cycle. One is a subscription. The other is infrastructure. Then Zuckerberg described the part most people have not thought about yet. Zuckerberg: “A lot of creators will have their own AIs. It’s like a richer world when there’s a diversity of different things.” Your favorite creator will have an AI trained on everything they have ever made. Available to millions of people simultaneously. Responding in real time while the creator sleeps. That is the difference between a brand that scales with your waking hours and one that scales with compute. One has a ceiling. The other does not. Zuckerberg is not betting on one model that governs everything. He is betting on billions of specialized AIs, each built by the person closest to the problem it solves. The companies still debating whether to adopt AI are not having the wrong conversation. They are standing in a room where the meeting ended an hour ago. The checklist updated. They did not.

Dustin

507,064 views • 5 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg paid $500 million dollars during the 2020 election in Swing States and “captured the county clerks and the Secretaries of States in these states” to ensure they were flooded with ballot drop boxes “What happened in the 2020 election?l “Oh, I think it was rigged” “Mark Zuckerberg investing $500 million in a Get Out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the, on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. They focused in, what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. They went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of States in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the Vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it. We will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections, But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it, if you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's Foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, — if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back, you most likely would've ended up in prison.” So flood our swing states with drop boxes they can put unlimited amounts of fraudulent mail in ballots in or we will throw you in prison…. Mark Zuckerberg can NEVER be trusted. He rigged the 2020 election “That's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge.”
2:03

Mark Zuckerberg paid $500 million dollars during the 2020 election in Swing States and “captured the county clerks and the Secretaries of States in these states” to ensure they were flooded with ballot drop boxes “What happened in the 2020 election?l “Oh, I think it was rigged” “Mark Zuckerberg investing $500 million in a Get Out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the, on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. They focused in, what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. They went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of States in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the Vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it. We will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections, But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it, if you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's Foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, — if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back, you most likely would've ended up in prison.” So flood our swing states with drop boxes they can put unlimited amounts of fraudulent mail in ballots in or we will throw you in prison…. Mark Zuckerberg can NEVER be trusted. He rigged the 2020 election “That's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge.”

Wall Street Apes

407,912 views • 1 year ago

Mark Zuckerberg just argued that AI will force companies to hire more people. Not fewer. Three and a half billion people use Meta every day. Not one of them has a phone number to call. Mark Zuckerberg: “It’s clearly just going to automate jobs and like all these jobs are going to go away… that has not really been how the history of technology has worked.” The entire media cycle runs the same story. AI replaces workers. Industries hollow out. The human becomes unnecessary. History has never once cooperated. Voice support for 3.5 billion daily users costs between ten and twenty billion dollars a year. The math made it untouchable. So Meta never built it. AI changed the math. Zuckerberg: “Let’s say the AI can handle 90 percent of that… you’ve gotten the cost of providing that service down to one 10th.” A service that could not exist becomes standard. Overnight. The moment it goes live, the edge cases arrive. The escalations. The problems no model can close alone. Every one needs a human on the other end. Zuckerberg: “I actually think we’re probably going to go hire more customer support people.” The AI did not kill the jobs. It unlocked a service so vast the company now needs people it never would have hired. When execution costs crater, companies do not pocket the savings. They go after problems they could never afford to touch. New markets. New products. New services that were economically impossible twelve months ago. Every one creates roles that did not exist before the machine arrived. The people terrified of automation are tracking the wrong number. They count the jobs that disappear. They have no framework for the ones that haven’t been invented yet.
1:49

Mark Zuckerberg just argued that AI will force companies to hire more people. Not fewer. Three and a half billion people use Meta every day. Not one of them has a phone number to call. Mark Zuckerberg: “It’s clearly just going to automate jobs and like all these jobs are going to go away… that has not really been how the history of technology has worked.” The entire media cycle runs the same story. AI replaces workers. Industries hollow out. The human becomes unnecessary. History has never once cooperated. Voice support for 3.5 billion daily users costs between ten and twenty billion dollars a year. The math made it untouchable. So Meta never built it. AI changed the math. Zuckerberg: “Let’s say the AI can handle 90 percent of that… you’ve gotten the cost of providing that service down to one 10th.” A service that could not exist becomes standard. Overnight. The moment it goes live, the edge cases arrive. The escalations. The problems no model can close alone. Every one needs a human on the other end. Zuckerberg: “I actually think we’re probably going to go hire more customer support people.” The AI did not kill the jobs. It unlocked a service so vast the company now needs people it never would have hired. When execution costs crater, companies do not pocket the savings. They go after problems they could never afford to touch. New markets. New products. New services that were economically impossible twelve months ago. Every one creates roles that did not exist before the machine arrived. The people terrified of automation are tracking the wrong number. They count the jobs that disappear. They have no framework for the ones that haven’t been invented yet.

Dustin

369,810 views • 5 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg just described the end of the creator economy. And framed it as a feature. Zuckerberg: “If you’re a creator, one of the big challenges is there are only so many hours in the day, and your community probably has a nearly unlimited demand to interact with you.” He named the constraint every creator lives with. Your audience will always want more of you than you can physically give. His answer isn’t to help you keep up. It’s to make you optional. Zuckerberg: “If we can make it so that each creator can basically make an AI artifact that their community can interact with.” Look at the word he chose. Artifact. Not assistant. Not extension. Not tool. An artifact is something that exists after the person who made it is gone. Zuckerberg: “It’s almost like a piece of digital art that you’re producing. Like an interactive sculpture.” He’s asking creators to build a version of themselves. Hand it over. Then walk away. And call it empowerment. Zuckerberg: “You’re giving your community something to interact with when you can’t be there to answer all the questions.” Something to interact with. Not someone. Something. The entire creator economy was built on three things. The person was real. The connection felt real. The audience believed they were talking to a human being who actually gave a damn. Zuckerberg is building a future where all three become optional. Zuckerberg: “In the future there will be content that is purely generated by AI, personalized for you.” Not made by someone with a point of view. Generated by a system that knows what makes you stay. The feed stops being a town square. It becomes a mirror. Showing you exactly what you want to see. Made by no one. For no reason other than engagement. Every post. Every video. Every reply. Every comment a creator ever made on these platforms. All of it was training data. Creators didn’t just build audiences. They built the dataset that makes them replaceable. Zuckerberg didn’t build a creator economy. He built a training pipeline with a revenue share. And the pipeline is almost ready to run without them. We spent two decades convincing ourselves that real connection could happen through a screen. We’re about to find out what happens when there’s no one on the other side of it.
2:09

Mark Zuckerberg just described the end of the creator economy. And framed it as a feature. Zuckerberg: “If you’re a creator, one of the big challenges is there are only so many hours in the day, and your community probably has a nearly unlimited demand to interact with you.” He named the constraint every creator lives with. Your audience will always want more of you than you can physically give. His answer isn’t to help you keep up. It’s to make you optional. Zuckerberg: “If we can make it so that each creator can basically make an AI artifact that their community can interact with.” Look at the word he chose. Artifact. Not assistant. Not extension. Not tool. An artifact is something that exists after the person who made it is gone. Zuckerberg: “It’s almost like a piece of digital art that you’re producing. Like an interactive sculpture.” He’s asking creators to build a version of themselves. Hand it over. Then walk away. And call it empowerment. Zuckerberg: “You’re giving your community something to interact with when you can’t be there to answer all the questions.” Something to interact with. Not someone. Something. The entire creator economy was built on three things. The person was real. The connection felt real. The audience believed they were talking to a human being who actually gave a damn. Zuckerberg is building a future where all three become optional. Zuckerberg: “In the future there will be content that is purely generated by AI, personalized for you.” Not made by someone with a point of view. Generated by a system that knows what makes you stay. The feed stops being a town square. It becomes a mirror. Showing you exactly what you want to see. Made by no one. For no reason other than engagement. Every post. Every video. Every reply. Every comment a creator ever made on these platforms. All of it was training data. Creators didn’t just build audiences. They built the dataset that makes them replaceable. Zuckerberg didn’t build a creator economy. He built a training pipeline with a revenue share. And the pipeline is almost ready to run without them. We spent two decades convincing ourselves that real connection could happen through a screen. We’re about to find out what happens when there’s no one on the other side of it.

Dustin

26,471 views • 4 months ago

Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel offers a contrarian view on mastery: the best founders aren't specialists, they're polymaths who understand how everything connects. After 14 years on the Facebook board, Thiel has watched Mark Zuckerberg up close. And he's noticed something that cuts against conventional wisdom about what it takes to build something great. "I think that one kind of perspective for a lot of the world-class entrepreneurs is they're not specialists. They're something close to polymaths." Thiel uses Zuckerberg as his prime example: "If you have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, he'd be able to speak with a surprising amount of understanding about a lot of things. He could talk about the details of the Facebook product, the psychology of social media, the way the culture is shifting, the management of the company, and how this fits into the bigger history of technology." This stands in stark contrast to how academia frames expertise: "Whereas the sort of academic view is often that you're like a narrow expert on one thing and that's what you do and what it is about. It's much more this polymath-like intellect who understands all these different things." Peter Thiel reflects on what this has looked like at the board level: "The kinds of board conversations we've had over the last 13, 14 years, it's just been this crazy range." The takeaway: world-class founders don't just go deep in one area. They think across product, psychology, culture, management, and technology history, and they see how it all connects.
1:06

Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel offers a contrarian view on mastery: the best founders aren't specialists, they're polymaths who understand how everything connects. After 14 years on the Facebook board, Thiel has watched Mark Zuckerberg up close. And he's noticed something that cuts against conventional wisdom about what it takes to build something great. "I think that one kind of perspective for a lot of the world-class entrepreneurs is they're not specialists. They're something close to polymaths." Thiel uses Zuckerberg as his prime example: "If you have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg, he'd be able to speak with a surprising amount of understanding about a lot of things. He could talk about the details of the Facebook product, the psychology of social media, the way the culture is shifting, the management of the company, and how this fits into the bigger history of technology." This stands in stark contrast to how academia frames expertise: "Whereas the sort of academic view is often that you're like a narrow expert on one thing and that's what you do and what it is about. It's much more this polymath-like intellect who understands all these different things." Peter Thiel reflects on what this has looked like at the board level: "The kinds of board conversations we've had over the last 13, 14 years, it's just been this crazy range." The takeaway: world-class founders don't just go deep in one area. They think across product, psychology, culture, management, and technology history, and they see how it all connects.

Big Brain Business

69,444 views • 5 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg explains the winning DNA of Meta. Even when people thought Facebook is gonna get obsolete with the rise of apps like Snapchat, Twitter & Instagram etc. Meta still stands as one of the most powerful companies in the world. Mark says Meta was never a social app or a social network, it's a technology company focused on Human Connections. Unlike other companies they've never limited themselves to a narrow point from the beginning. Meta's Technical foundation is so strong that it could venture into any domain & create major impact. Meta's ability to solve any problem also comes from Mark's engineering origin - he studied System Engg & this impacted the whole company's problem solving mindset. Also Mark noticed this in SV & made sure Meta didn't do this mistake - Not all companies who call themselves a Tech company is truly a technology company. As their management team & Board had Less engineers & even the CEO sometimes aren'y technical , they can't be considered a tech company, Meta has more engg in their Management & Board.
3:21

Mark Zuckerberg explains the winning DNA of Meta. Even when people thought Facebook is gonna get obsolete with the rise of apps like Snapchat, Twitter & Instagram etc. Meta still stands as one of the most powerful companies in the world. Mark says Meta was never a social app or a social network, it's a technology company focused on Human Connections. Unlike other companies they've never limited themselves to a narrow point from the beginning. Meta's Technical foundation is so strong that it could venture into any domain & create major impact. Meta's ability to solve any problem also comes from Mark's engineering origin - he studied System Engg & this impacted the whole company's problem solving mindset. Also Mark noticed this in SV & made sure Meta didn't do this mistake - Not all companies who call themselves a Tech company is truly a technology company. As their management team & Board had Less engineers & even the CEO sometimes aren'y technical , they can't be considered a tech company, Meta has more engg in their Management & Board.

Aish

31,752 views • 2 years ago

The Biden administration wanted a Leonardo DiCaprio meme taken down. Meta refused. Then every agency in the federal government showed up. Zuckerberg: “these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse” The enforcement mechanism was a phone call. It did the work a warrant would have required, because no court would have granted one. Zuckerberg: “We’re not gonna take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.” A company had to argue for the right to leave accurate information online. The argument was with its own government. The target was a joke about a future ad offering payouts to people who took the vaccine. It was a picture with words on it. Zuckerberg: “We’re not gonna take down humor and satire.” A government that opens a file on satire has stopped governing the country and started managing its own reputation. The pressure stayed private until the president made it public. Zuckerberg, on Biden: “These guys are killing people.” The most powerful man on earth accused a company of homicide for hosting content he disliked. Nothing was filed. Nothing had to be. Zuckerberg: “All these different agencies and branches of government basically just like started investigating and coming after our company.” Different agencies. Different branches. They all arrived at one company, immediately after that company said no. Rogan: “It’s just a massive overstepping. And also, you weren’t killing people.” Nobody inside the machine ever answered for that. The accusation was false. The investigations were real. Only one of the two carried a cost. Every system of control eventually stops caring whether it is right and starts caring whether it is obeyed. The tell is when the punishment arrives before the evidence does. They never had to prove the meme was false. They only had to make hosting it expensive. That is how censorship works in a country where censorship is illegal.
1:37

The Biden administration wanted a Leonardo DiCaprio meme taken down. Meta refused. Then every agency in the federal government showed up. Zuckerberg: “these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse” The enforcement mechanism was a phone call. It did the work a warrant would have required, because no court would have granted one. Zuckerberg: “We’re not gonna take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.” A company had to argue for the right to leave accurate information online. The argument was with its own government. The target was a joke about a future ad offering payouts to people who took the vaccine. It was a picture with words on it. Zuckerberg: “We’re not gonna take down humor and satire.” A government that opens a file on satire has stopped governing the country and started managing its own reputation. The pressure stayed private until the president made it public. Zuckerberg, on Biden: “These guys are killing people.” The most powerful man on earth accused a company of homicide for hosting content he disliked. Nothing was filed. Nothing had to be. Zuckerberg: “All these different agencies and branches of government basically just like started investigating and coming after our company.” Different agencies. Different branches. They all arrived at one company, immediately after that company said no. Rogan: “It’s just a massive overstepping. And also, you weren’t killing people.” Nobody inside the machine ever answered for that. The accusation was false. The investigations were real. Only one of the two carried a cost. Every system of control eventually stops caring whether it is right and starts caring whether it is obeyed. The tell is when the punishment arrives before the evidence does. They never had to prove the meme was false. They only had to make hosting it expensive. That is how censorship works in a country where censorship is illegal.

Dustin

388,146 views • 1 month ago

Marc Andreessen on why the founder model keeps winning: "You're much more likely to build something important in the 21st century if you start with a founder and train them on management, than you are to start with the manager and try to train them on being a founder." "All the old incumbent institutions in the last hundred years that are run by managers... they're all collapsing in trust and credibility because they can't adapt." "When Mark [Zuckerberg] started Facebook, he had never had a job before. Not only had he not managed people, he had not worked for anybody." "His learning curve was vertical." "He spends an enormous amount of time learning how to become better at running these things at large scale. He's still the founder and he's still the innovator and he's still like a fountain of ideas on what to do." "He's the classic example of the double threat." "And then what happens is other founders look at that and they're like, 'oh, I could do that.'" Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with David Senra
1:19

Marc Andreessen on why the founder model keeps winning: "You're much more likely to build something important in the 21st century if you start with a founder and train them on management, than you are to start with the manager and try to train them on being a founder." "All the old incumbent institutions in the last hundred years that are run by managers... they're all collapsing in trust and credibility because they can't adapt." "When Mark [Zuckerberg] started Facebook, he had never had a job before. Not only had he not managed people, he had not worked for anybody." "His learning curve was vertical." "He spends an enormous amount of time learning how to become better at running these things at large scale. He's still the founder and he's still the innovator and he's still like a fountain of ideas on what to do." "He's the classic example of the double threat." "And then what happens is other founders look at that and they're like, 'oh, I could do that.'" Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with David Senra

a16z

52,942 views • 6 months ago

Here is the actual GOP candidate for President of the United States attempting to say something about Mark Zuckerberg which is literally all I can figure out from this 90-SECOND LONG SENTENCE. 😵‍💫 “So Mark Zuckerberg called me first of all he called me a few times she called me after the event that he said that was really amazing it was very brave and you know and he actually announced he's not going to support a Democrat because he can't because he respected me for what I did that day I think what I did maybe was a norm to me it was a normal response but I was called by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday the day before on this same subject and he actually apologized he said they made a mistake etc etc in the correcting mistake a Google nobody called from Google one of the things I do in a show like yours you you show you know you see them Fox but what you really see it is all over the place they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job they're going to vote for me they're going to vote for me because it's not just on Fox it's on Fox is a smaller part of it you're on all over this those little beautiful cell phones you're on you're all over the place you have a product you have a great product you have a great brand so you have to get out you have to get out you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad they've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google isn't going to be close to shut down because I don't think Congress is going to take it I really don't think so Google has to be careful now I will say this I believe Mark Zuckerberg he called me so he called me a lot they are working and I think they fixed it but what can he's not doing what he did four years ago with the five hundred million dollars I don't believe.”
1:30

Here is the actual GOP candidate for President of the United States attempting to say something about Mark Zuckerberg which is literally all I can figure out from this 90-SECOND LONG SENTENCE. 😵‍💫 “So Mark Zuckerberg called me first of all he called me a few times she called me after the event that he said that was really amazing it was very brave and you know and he actually announced he's not going to support a Democrat because he can't because he respected me for what I did that day I think what I did maybe was a norm to me it was a normal response but I was called by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday the day before on this same subject and he actually apologized he said they made a mistake etc etc in the correcting mistake a Google nobody called from Google one of the things I do in a show like yours you you show you know you see them Fox but what you really see it is all over the place they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job they're going to vote for me they're going to vote for me because it's not just on Fox it's on Fox is a smaller part of it you're on all over this those little beautiful cell phones you're on you're all over the place you have a product you have a great product you have a great brand so you have to get out you have to get out you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad they've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google isn't going to be close to shut down because I don't think Congress is going to take it I really don't think so Google has to be careful now I will say this I believe Mark Zuckerberg he called me so he called me a lot they are working and I think they fixed it but what can he's not doing what he did four years ago with the five hundred million dollars I don't believe.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

2,250,292 views • 2 years ago

Anduril Founder Palmer Luckey Shuts Down Emily Chang’s Question on Anduril’s Politics: CHANG: “So much has been made of Peter Thiel’s investment in Anduril… is this a partisan effort?” LUCKEY: “There’s very few people who think that it’s better for China to have better weapons than the United States… It is really quite a bipartisan issue.” “One of the reasons that people have tried to turn me into a partisan figure is because it’s really good for clicks… the reality is I spend 1% of my time on politics, I spend 99% on tech.” “One of the moderators on your previous panels was on TV spreading all kinds of lies about me during the election year… a fabricated story that outlets, including Bloomberg, picked up, ran with, and performed a character assassination on me.” “People who spend far more on politics on the other side of the aisle would never even be asked the question you’re asking me.” “Would you ever have Zuckerberg up here and say: ‘You donated a lot of money to politics… isn’t your company actually really partisan?’” CHANG: “I might ask Zuckerberg that question.” This interview is from June 2023. One year later Emily Chang interviewed Zuckerberg… she did not ask any questions regarding the political leanings of Meta.
2:03

Anduril Founder Palmer Luckey Shuts Down Emily Chang’s Question on Anduril’s Politics: CHANG: “So much has been made of Peter Thiel’s investment in Anduril… is this a partisan effort?” LUCKEY: “There’s very few people who think that it’s better for China to have better weapons than the United States… It is really quite a bipartisan issue.” “One of the reasons that people have tried to turn me into a partisan figure is because it’s really good for clicks… the reality is I spend 1% of my time on politics, I spend 99% on tech.” “One of the moderators on your previous panels was on TV spreading all kinds of lies about me during the election year… a fabricated story that outlets, including Bloomberg, picked up, ran with, and performed a character assassination on me.” “People who spend far more on politics on the other side of the aisle would never even be asked the question you’re asking me.” “Would you ever have Zuckerberg up here and say: ‘You donated a lot of money to politics… isn’t your company actually really partisan?’” CHANG: “I might ask Zuckerberg that question.” This interview is from June 2023. One year later Emily Chang interviewed Zuckerberg… she did not ask any questions regarding the political leanings of Meta.

Anduril Appreciator

306,888 views • 8 months ago