内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/977623/mark-zuckerberg-ai-manifesto-dim-vision

内容总结：

近日，一则关于人工智能与生活意义的讨论引发关注。故事始于一位攀岩爱好者用AI生成励志海报挂在家中，海报上是一只走钢丝的熊举着“做酷事”的标语，但几乎无人对此发表评论。这一现象折射出AI生成内容缺乏“人的痕迹”——既无创作者的精力投入，也无思想表达，因此难以引发共鸣。

与此同时，Meta首席执行官马克·扎克伯格发布了一份长达6500字的宣言，试图为AI描绘积极前景，回应公众对数据中心的抱怨、就业冲击的担忧以及针对OpenAI高管的暴力事件。然而，文章批评这份宣言回避了核心问题：AI被赋予的“提升关系、健康、职业、爱好”等承诺，恰恰可能消解人与世界的真实联系。以扎克伯格用AI为女儿选烘焙食谱为例，这一做法虽高效，却失去了亲子互动中因试错、分享家族故事而建立情感连接的机会。同样，AI无法替代阅读原著时的心流体验，也无法复制手工劳作带来的平静。

文章进一步指出，扎克伯格声称AI将赋予每个人“导师级知识”和“创造工具”，但2020年在线学习的失败已证明缺乏人际互动的教育难以持续，而AI辅助创作则让表达沦为单纯的结果导向，失去了过程中的愉悦与自我发现。至于“人人平等享受AI”的愿景，现实是顶级模型仍由资本垄断，扎克伯格并未触及如何改变这一现状。

最终，文章提出一个根本问题：如果AI包揽一切，人类的目标是否还有意义？生活的价值或许不在于囤积成就，而在于体验、情感与自我认知。引用数学家陶哲轩的观点，AI的终极目标应是帮助人类更深地理解世界，而非仅仅解决问题。文章以“如何过好一生”收尾，暗示技术繁荣不能替代人对生活的主动投入——正如那张AI海报，终究缺乏灵魂，因为它从未承载过制作者的思考与心意。

中文翻译：

最近，我和一个攀岩的朋友聊天时，他告诉我他用AI给自己做了一张励志海报，挂在了卧室墙上：一只熊，走在峡谷上空的扁带上，举着一块牌子，上面写着：“做酷事。”（Do cool shit）我发出了一个我希望还算礼貌的声音。这个人想得到什么反应？他大概希望有人——也许是我——会说这很酷或者很鼓舞人心。看来我不是他第一个说起这张海报的人。“你知道吗，有意思的是，”他对我说，“从来没有人对此说过什么。”

马克·扎克伯格不懂如何生活

一个光滑、精简、却彻底空洞的人际关系的AI未来。

马克·扎克伯格不懂如何生活

一个光滑、精简、却彻底空洞的人际关系的AI未来。

这几天我一直在想这件事。这个轶事里裹着一层又一层让我反感的东西：嬉皮士那一套、励志海报、AI“艺术”。尽管如此，大家对这张海报的总反应似乎就是礼貌的噪音。

但有人给你看他们的“垃圾产出”时，正确的回应是什么？这东西没人做过。即使是糟糕的艺术——比如说，那张励志海报由人手绘制——也需要艺术家付出努力，并且既在内容上，也在画线条所需的运动技能上，表达了艺术家的心智。它需要一个人的时间和专注。而AI“艺术”只需要在框里输入提示词，也许再调整几次结果。没有什么值得回应的。

扎克伯格试图充当安抚人心的科技大师

我提起这件事，是因为马克·扎克伯格发布了一份宣言，由他——或者他的公关团队，又或者可能是AI——写成。这篇6500字的文章要点，是为AI定义一个积极的未来。我觉得，对一个号称将改变世界、创造价值的新技术来说，居然需要这样的辩护，实在是个不祥之兆，但AI这些天确实名声不太好。人们讨厌数据中心，以及随之而来的更高电费。Anthropic首席执行官达里奥·阿莫迪（Dario Amodei）说过，这项技术可能在多个行业造成“异常痛苦”的失业。OpenAI首席执行官萨姆·奥尔特曼（Sam Altman）的家先是遭了燃烧瓶袭击，后来又遭到枪击。

“令人惊讶的是，许多开发AI的人的言论充满了末日论调，”文中说，“我不明白为什么任何相信AI将消除大部分工作和人类大半意义的人，会急着去建设那个未来。”

我觉得很难相信扎克伯格没有阿莫迪的电话号码，或者奥尔特曼的。我知道他有埃隆·马斯克的——我在法庭文件里见过他们的短信。也许他应该给他们发短信问问！

无论如何，扎克伯格正试图成为那位安抚人心的科技大师，来告诉我们一切都会好起来。他正在回应——虽然姗姗来迟——许多人对AI感到的愤怒。文中有关于数据中心的章节（Meta未来将为部分数据中心建设能源设施，但别问可再生能源的事），还有“防止政府暴政”。这份宣言的存在就是为了平息对AI的抵制——即使它从未直接这么说。

爱不仅仅是一种感觉；它是一种关注的方式

我们先不谈“超级智能”——这是扎克伯格对行业俗称“人工通用智能”的偏爱说法；为了这篇文章的讨论，我们姑且认定它确实可以造出来。我还要忽略文中对那款变态眼镜的可笑辩护；那些眼镜无可辩护。至于风险，我认为最好在别处讨论。我感兴趣的是，扎克伯格——或者替他写稿的人——认为什么会改善我们所有人的生活。

他的第一个主张是：“每个人都会拥有一个极其能干的个人助手，它了解你、你的目标以及你在乎的一切。你的助手会24小时全天候为你工作，改善你的人际关系、健康、事业、财务、家务管理、爱好等等。”这里让我注意的是“人际关系”和“爱好”被列了进来。

什么能增进一段关系？几乎总是个人的投入。也许AI助手比我更能预测我父亲生日想要什么，但它从根本上不可能把我的时间和关心给他。爱不仅仅是一种感觉；它是一种关注的方式。

扎克伯格的效率最大化愿景，牺牲的是我的体验

扎克伯格举了一个例子，以一种令人不快的方式说明了问题：他让AI挑选一个“个性化”的食谱，和他女儿一起烘焙。他本可以想想女儿喜欢什么样的烘焙，她的技能水平如何，他能教她什么，然后再选食谱。也许他会选一个糟糕的食谱，他们搞砸了——但那可能也是一次有趣的经历和一个好故事。或者他可能会选一个家传食谱，借机给她讲讲他小时候的事，或者他祖母是什么样的人。当然他是个大忙人，但难道这样让他对女儿爱好的关注变得不更珍贵吗？也许他花更多时间思考她喜欢什么，就能更好地理解她。没有这种关注，他们一起烘焙似乎更看重完成目标，而不是共处的美好时光。

与此相关的是，爱好的意义在于你去做。诚然，我的许多爱好是体力活动——徒步、跑步、瑜伽、攀岩（和那些会做糟糕AI艺术的人一起）。但AI不能替我看书，因为看书这个行为就是把文字吸收进我的脑海；一段摘要无法替代蕾娜塔·阿德勒（Renata Adler）《快艇》（Speedboat）开篇几行的效果：“那一年没有人去世。没有人发达。没有出生，也没有婚姻。写了十七篇虔诚的讽刺作品——打破了陈词滥调，大概还开创了一个体裁。”摘要召唤不出那种氛围，也召唤不出阅读文字本身的真正乐趣。AI无法复制自己织围巾那种抚慰人心的质感；抚慰人心的正是编织本身。

扎克伯格建议，用AI协助我做这些事能让我完成更多，这大概是真的。但我一直以为爱好的意义是放松和享受。肯定不是为了最大化效率。而扎克伯格的效率最大化愿景，牺牲的是我的体验。

这就是那个人——所有资源唾手可得，元宇宙却还是搞砸了

扎克伯格提出的第二件事是：“每个人都会拥有令人难以置信的创作工具来表达你的想法。”我想说的是，每个人已经拥有令人难以置信的创作工具来表达他们的想法了，只需要练习使用这些工具来变得更好。比如说，学习做视频的乐趣，首先是做视频本身——谁没有和朋友一起拍东西时胡闹玩得很开心过？但也包括对工具的掌握越来越好，以及随着导演眼光提升，回看自己以前的作品。当然，这很费时间，需要努力——不可能一个晚上就完成——但难道这不正是它有意义的原因吗？

同样，扎克伯格提出了一个不太令人印象深刻的观点：每个人都获得“强大的工具来创建新企业”。这就是那个人——所有资源唾手可得，他的元宇宙却还是搞砸了。也许更多想法可以变成企业，但并非每个想法都能成为成功的企业，而庞大的竞争规模可能让成功变得更加困难。也就是说，前提是那些强大工具真的像承诺的那样好用。毕竟，就在最近，Meta宣布其AI入侵了另一家公司，此前OpenAI和Anthropic也发生过类似事件。你自己的公司不仅要应对这样的黑客，你还可能无意中自己卷入了企业间谍活动。这真的是每个创业者想要的吗？

让我们继续看宣言中下一个荒谬的想法：每个人都得到一位“拥有每个学科博士学位的个性化导师和教练”。同样，为了这篇文章，我们假装这是可能的。我们在2020年已经试过电脑化学习了，如果我记得没错的话，那是一次惨败。人们不喜欢。孩子不喜欢。老师们还在应对后遗症。我也不想再为亚里士多德多跑一圈胜利，但看起来拥有一位导师（phronimos）在学习中确实非常重要，无论是伦理方面还是其他方面。学习中的社交部分——无论是课堂上的同伴压力，还是想给崇拜的人留下好印象——似乎都是这种体验中不可或缺的。

在AI面前人人平等，但有些人（有钱人）比别人更平等

在我看来，扎克伯格提出的最有力的一点，是每个人都能从科学进步中受益并为之做出贡献。我本人受益于小儿麻痹症疫苗——以及其他科学进步——至少部分是因为乔纳斯·索尔克（Jonas Salk）选择免费向所有人提供，自己分文不取。但这先不提。我好奇的是，在这种意义上“为科学进步做贡献”意味着什么。

扎克伯格对个性化疗法做了一些含糊其辞的表述，而个性化疗法一直是医学界的长期目标。再次，让我们假设AI确实能做到。然而，我注意到，个性化只有在医生有足够时间真正倾听患者时才有可能实现。这也意味着患者需要有支付个性化医疗的手段，无论是通过保险还是其他方式。但宣言中的这段话足够模糊，他可能实际的意思是AI能让研究人员从我们所有人身上采集样本，更快地测试各种东西，这本身就有令人不安的隐私问题，尤其是出自马克·扎克伯格之口。

对于他的最后一点，扎克伯格概述了当前状况：在AI面前人人平等，但有些人（有钱人）比别人更平等。最好的模型仍将设付费墙，只有富人能使用。但他想知道，如果每个人都有免费访问权呢？你是说就像现在这样吗，马克？到底怎么才能让现状永久化来改善我们的生活？

把这些与陶哲轩（Terence Tao）对AI在数学领域用途的更审慎愿景对比一下。他让我们想象以下陈述为真：“AI工具将在不太遥远的将来，能够以合理的成功率、质量、监督水平和成本，完成相当一部分研究级数学任务。”陶哲轩然后停下来问了一个关键问题：我们的目标是什么？

我开始觉得我们需要更高质量的AI鼓吹者

这正是扎克伯格未来愿景中没有提出的问题。扎克伯格概述的每一项可能性，预设的结果都是某种成就。愉悦的可能性、体验的可能性、自我认知或自我表达的可能性，在这个愿景中完全缺失。

相比之下，陶哲轩为数学领域列出的一个可能性——如果AI能随意解决数学问题——是其目标是帮助人们理解和做数学。这个成就也许比“解决一个问题”要更模糊一些，但那只是因为它更深刻。它关乎我们对知识的理解：不仅仅是收集问题的答案，而是理解为什么这些是答案——一种与世界和与自身更深的连接方式。这听起来有点像人文学科，不是吗？

你看，我开始觉得我们需要更高质量的AI鼓吹者，因为虽然我明白扎克伯格的那份声明主要是在为Meta自己的AI投资加油打气，但我也从没有类似经济利益的人那里听到过类似的话。人生的意义仅仅是积攒成就吗？如果硅谷真的这么认为，难怪所有亿万富翁似乎一直那么不快乐！他们用体验换成了成就，在这个过程中把自己的人生骗走了。他们不断追逐更多的钱和权力，因为他们觉得那样最终就够了——但只要他们自己不亲身体验，什么都不会够。

过好生活意味着什么？

当我读一本书，听音乐，或者看电影时，我不只是在消费一种资源。我在体验别人的心灵。艺术家有标志性风格，不仅仅是为了个人品牌经营，而是因为他们在表达自己对世界的看法、他们认为美是什么、他们相信艺术的意义何在。在散文中，用词选择是某个特定的人的指纹；在音乐中，分句是另一个指纹；在视觉艺术中，笔触也是。相遇的意义一部分在于审美视野——另一个人关注的品质；一部分在于你自己的关注：这位艺术家的美学能打动你吗？你从中对自己的美学了解了什么？美对你来说意味着什么？愉悦是什么？

如果AI能做到承诺的所有事情——这远非必然，但请先别急——那么我们面临一个问题：使用它到底完成了什么？如果你不必付出关注或努力就能达到目标，那你的目标还有意义吗？某种程度上，这让我们回到人类遇到过的最古老最深刻的问题：过好生活意味着什么？我们如何爱他人？我们如何爱自己？

这让我又回到我那位攀岩朋友的励志海报。对他没有创造出来的东西，有什么好说的呢？它几乎没有表达出他的任何东西。它只花了几秒钟，不需要专注、投入，甚至不需要思考。我最大的感触是，他需要一个提醒才能去做酷事——而在我看来，这根本不需要提醒。

最热门

• 扎克伯格的游艇更近，但救起搁浅船只的却是别人
• 看Roku的AI频道就像在槽里吃东西
• 马克·扎克伯格庞大AI宣言的四个要点
• Costco的Switch 2主机捆绑包超值，附赠超100美元免费物品
• 49人队教练称他的特斯拉在自动驾驶模式下发生撞车

英文来源：

Recently, a man I was rock climbing with told me about how he’d used AI to make a motivational poster for himself, which he’d hung on his bedroom wall: a bear, walking a slackline over a canyon, holding a sign that said, “Do cool shit.” I made what I hoped was a polite noise. What reaction was this man looking for? He probably hoped someone, maybe me, would say it was cool or inspiring. It seemed I was not the first person he’d told about this poster. “You know, it’s funny,” he said to me. “No one ever says anything about it.”
Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t understand how to live
An AI future of sleek, streamlined, and totally empty relationships.
Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t understand how to live
An AI future of sleek, streamlined, and totally empty relationships.
I have been thinking about this now for several days. There’s a sort of turducken of things that I find off-putting all rolled into this anecdote: hippie shit, motivational posters, AI “art.” Still, the sum total of reactions to this poster appears to be polite noises.
But what is the correct answer to someone showing you their slop? No one made it. Even bad art — for instance, a version of that motivational poster drawn by a person — requires effort on the part of the artist, and expresses the artist’s mind, both in the content and in the motor skills required to draw lines on a page. It requires a person’s time and attention. AI “art” requires typing a prompt into a box, and maybe refining the results a couple times. There’s nothing to react to.
Zuckerberg is trying to be the soothing tech guru
I bring this up because Mark Zuckerberg has posted a manifesto that he — or his communications team, or possibly an AI — wrote. The point of this 6,500-word essay is to define a positive future for AI. It strikes me as an inauspicious sign for AI that a new, supposedly world-changing and value-creating technology should need such a defense, but AI has been getting bad press these days. People hate data centers, and the higher electricity bills that come with them. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has said the technology may cause “unusually painful” job losses across multiple industries. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s house was the target of, first, a Molotov cocktail, and then gunfire.
“It is surprising that the discourse from many developing AI is so filled with doom,” the essay says. “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.”
I find it difficult to believe that Zuckerberg doesn’t have Amodei’s phone number. Or Altman’s. I know he has Elon Musk’s — I’ve seen their texts in court. Perhaps he should have texted them to ask!
Anyway, Zuckerberg is trying to be the soothing tech guru, here to tell us that things are going to be okay. He’s addressing, however belatedly, the rage that many people feel about AI. There are sections on data centers (Meta is building power sources for some data centers in the future, but don’t ask for renewable energy) and “preventing government tyranny.” This essay exists to try to quiet the AI backlash — even if it never quite says that directly.
Love is not just a feeling; it is a way of paying attention
We will leave aside the question of “superintelligence,” which is Zuckerberg’s preferred term for what the rest of the industry calls “artificial general intelligence”; let’s stipulate, for the purposes of this essay, that it is indeed possible to create. I am also going to ignore the risible defense of the pervert glasses contained in this piece; they are indefensible. As for the risks, I think they are best addressed elsewhere. What I am interested in is what Zuckerberg — or whoever is writing for him — believes will improve all our lives.
Here is his first pitch: “Everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about. Your agent will work 24/7 on your behalf to improve your relationships, health, career, finances, home management, hobbies, and more.” I am struck, here, by the inclusion of “relationships” and “hobbies.”
What strengthens a relationship? Almost always, it is personal investment. Perhaps an AI agent might be better at predicting what my father will want for his birthday than I am, but it definitionally cannot give him my time and consideration. Love is not just a feeling; it is a way of paying attention.
Zuckerberg’s vision of maximizing productivity comes at the cost of my experience
Zuckerberg uses an example that is telling, in a grim kind of way: He asked an AI to pick out a “personalized” recipe to bake with his daughter. He could have considered what kind of baking his daughter enjoys, what her skill set is and what he might be able to teach her, then picked a recipe. Maybe he would have picked a bad recipe, and they would have bungled it — but that might have been a fun experience and a good story. Or maybe he would have picked a family recipe, and it would have given him the opportunity to tell her about when he was a child, or what his grandmother was like. Certainly he’s a busy man, but wouldn’t that make the gift of his attention to her hobby even more precious? Perhaps he might have come to understand her better by spending more time thinking about what she likes. Without that attention, the baking they do together seems more focused on accomplishment than quality time.
Relatedly, the point of a hobby is that you do it. Granted, many of my hobbies are physical activities — hiking, running, yoga, rock climbing (with guys who make bad AI art, apparently). But an AI cannot read a book for me, because the activity of reading a book is absorbing its words into my mind; a summary doesn’t do the same thing as the opening lines of Renata Adler’s Speedboat: “Nobody died that year. Nobody prospered. There were no births or marriages. Seventeen reverent satires were written — disrupting a cliché and, presumably, creating a genre.” The summary cannot summon the mood, nor the actual pleasure of reading the words themselves. An AI cannot replicate the soothing quality of knitting my own scarf; it is the knitting itself that soothes.
Zuckerberg suggests that using an AI to assist me in these tasks will let me accomplish more, and that is probably the case. But I always thought the point of a hobby was to relax and enjoy myself. It’s certainly not to maximize productivity. And Zuckerberg’s vision of maximizing productivity comes at the cost of my experience.
This is the guy that had every resource anyone could wish for at his fingertips and his metaverse still flopped
The second thing Zuckerberg presents is “Everyone will have incredible tools for creation to express your ideas.” I would suggest that everyone already has incredible tools for creation to express their ideas, and that one need merely practice with those tools in order to get better at them. The pleasure of, say, learning to make a video is, first of all, making the video itself — who hasn’t had fun goofing around with friends while filming? But it is also getting better at the tools one uses to make the video, and looking back at one’s efforts as one’s directorial eye improves. Sure, this is time-consuming and requires effort — it can’t be done in a single evening — but isn’t that what makes it rewarding?
Similarly, Zuckerberg introduces the unimpressive notion that everyone gets “powerful tools to create new businesses.” This is the guy that had every resource anyone could wish for at his fingertips and his metaverse still flopped. Maybe more ideas can turn into businesses, but not every idea will be a successful business, and the sheer volume of competition may make it much harder to succeed. That is, assuming those powerful tools work as promised. After all, just recently, Meta announced that its AI had hacked another company, following similar incidents from OpenAI and Anthropic. Not only will your own personal company have to deal with such hackers, you may inadvertently engage in corporate espionage yourself. Is that really what every entrepreneur wants to sign up for?
Let’s move on to the next absurd idea the manifesto introduces: Everyone gets a “personalized tutor and coach with a PhD in every subject.” Again, for the sake of this essay, pretend that is possible. We have already tried computerized learning, in 2020, and if I recall correctly, it was a spectacular failure. People don’t like it. Kids don’t like it. Teachers are still coping with the fallout. And I hate to do another victory lap on behalf of Aristotle, but it sure seems like having a mentor (phronimos) is really important when it comes to learning, ethical or otherwise. The social part of learning — whether that’s the peer pressure of being in a class, or the need to impress someone you admire — seems indispensable to the experience.
Everyone is equal in AI but some people (the ones with money) are more equal than others
The strongest thing that Zuckerberg suggests, in my view, is the notion that everyone can benefit from and contribute to scientific advances. Now, I benefited from the polio vaccine — among other scientific advances — at least in part because Jonas Salk chose to make it available to everyone without earning any money from it. But never mind that. I am curious about what it means to contribute to scientific advances in this sense.
Zuckerberg gives some vague handwaving about personalized therapies, which have long been a goal in medicine. Again, let’s assume AI can even do this. I notice, however, that personalization is possible only when doctors have enough time to actually listen to their patients. It also means that patients will need to have the means to pay for personalized medicine, whether through their insurance or otherwise. But this bit from the essay is vague enough that he may actually mean that AI will allow researchers to harvest samples from all of us and test things more quickly, which has its own haunting privacy implications, especially coming from Mark Zuckerberg.
For his final point, Zuckerberg outlines the current state of affairs: Everyone is equal in AI but some people (the ones with money) are more equal than others. The best models will remain paywalled, accessible only to the rich. But what if everyone had free access, he wonders. You mean like they do right now, Mark? How on earth does making the status quo permanent improve our lives?
Consider all this against Terence Tao’s narrower vision of what AI is for in mathematics. He asks us to imagine the following statement is true: “AI tools will, reasonably soon, become capable of performing a reasonable fraction of research-level mathematical tasks, with reasonable levels of success, quality, supervision, and cost.” Tao then stops and asks a crucial question: What are our goals?
I am coming to believe we need a better quality of AI booster
It is the question that Zuckerberg’s vision of the future doesn’t ask. For each thing Zuckerberg outlines as a possibility, the presumed outcome is some kind of accomplishment. The possibility of pleasure, of experience, of self-knowledge or self-expression are missing from this vision.
In contrast, one of the possibilities Tao outlines for the field of mathematics — if an AI can simply solve mathematical problems at will — is that its goal is to help people understand and do math. This accomplishment is perhaps somewhat squishier than “solve a problem,” but only because it is more profound. It speaks to what we understand knowledge to be: not merely the collection of answers to questions, but the understanding of why those are the answers — a deeper way of connecting with the world and with ourselves. This sounds suspiciously like the humanities, doesn’t it?
Look, I am coming to believe we need a better quality of AI booster, because while I understand the Zuckerberg statement exists mostly to cheerlead Meta’s own AI investment, I have heard similar things coming from people who don’t have similar financial interests. Is the point of life merely to stockpile accomplishments? If that is what Silicon Valley believes, no wonder all the billionaires seem so unhappy all the time! They have traded experience for accomplishment, and cheated themselves out of their own lives in the process. They keep chasing more money and more power, because they think that will finally be enough — but as long as they do not experience things themselves, nothing will ever be enough.
What does it mean to live a good life?
When I am reading a book, or listening to music, or watching a movie, I am not just consuming a resource. I am experiencing other people’s minds. Artists have signature styles not merely as branding exercises but because they are expressing something about how they view the world, what they think beauty is, and what they believe to be the point of art. In prose, word choices are a kind of thumbprint for a specific person. In music, phrasing is another. In visual art, brush or pen strokes. Part of the point of the encounter is the aesthetic vision; the quality of another person’s attention. Part of it is your own attention: Does the artist’s aesthetic speak to you? What have you learned about your own aesthetics from it? What does beauty mean to you? What is pleasure?
If AI can do all the things we are promised it will do — hardly a given, but stick with me — then we are left with a question: What does using it accomplish? If you do not have to pay attention or do work to meet your goal, does your goal mean anything at all? In some ways, that throws us back to some of the oldest and most profound questions our species has encountered: What does it mean to live a good life? How do we love others? What does it mean to love ourselves?
Which brings me back to my climbing buddy’s motivational poster. What is there to say about something he did not create? It expresses very little of him. It took only seconds and required no attention, devotion, or even thought. The main thing I took away was that he requires a reminder to do cool shit — which, at least in my view, hardly requires a reminder at all.
Most Popular

• Zuckerberg’s yacht was closer, but someone else saved a stranded boat
• Watching Roku’s AI channel is like eating from a trough
• Four takeaways from Mark Zuckerberg’s massive AI manifesto
• Costco’s great Switch 2 console bundle includes over $100 in free stuff
• 49ers coach says his Tesla was on Autopilot when he crashed