Zuckerberg has unique power among CEOs in public companies. He controls the board and he owns a majority of voting shares.
Sure they can theoretically sue him for some kind of gross mismanagement of the company or disloyalty, but why would the owner class do that? Investors are all in on AI replacing human workers. If they think Zuckerberg doing this is wrong, they would imply AI should not work in place of humans.
(And I've heard he stole Mosaic code, which I don't know if it's true but would be consistent)
The FT piece says "They added that the character was being trained on the billionaire’s mannerisms, tone and publicly available statements, as well as his own recent thinking on company strategies, so that employees might feel more connected to the founder through interactions with it."
Surely the more likely outcome is that employees feel less connected to "the founder" because they know that there's a high chance they are simply talking to an AI clone?
Also... is that a thing most people want?
Is this a meaningful replacement for that? Probably not, but I’m not prepared to rule it out. Give 1 in 1000 Claudes a Zuckerberg persona and you’d get some chuckles out of it I bet.
But I'm surprised that the risks seem to be so underestimated.
Once this clone exists, what happens if it gets out into the wild? Imagine everyone having full access do what is effectively a digital model of your personality. Imagine your competition putting your own model to use against you.
And the better the approximation of this model, the worse the damage to yourself.
Hence why I'm so surprised that MZ, of all people, is arguing in this direction.
I would think that the potential for malicious abuse alone should have scared him off of this.
Am I arguing against this? I don't know - I'm not an economist. But I would like to point out there is such a thing as shareholder fraud and the venn diagram between "sacrifice quality to please shareholders" and "deceiving shareholders" has to be one big intersecting circle, you know? Especially when the guy (Zuckerberg with dual-class shares) can't ever be fired
This is magical thinking. "Presence" and "time cost" are inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other.
When you use AI to decouple them, you're telling your audience/colleagues/attend that you want them to listen to you but not the other way around.
But it was helpful to me!
Reading it I mean. The commenter putting into words why exactly someone would think that this would be a good idea.
Of course, you're 110% right that it isn't, but it's still nice that HN provides some subtiles for those that are out of the loop and out of substances in their bloodstream.
https://www.ft.com/content/02107c23-6c7a-4c19-b8e2-b45f4bb9c...
There have been too many high level conversations that can be summarized as: "If I send you an email, and an AI responds, I do not want to work with you."
Communication at work requires a reasonable boundary about what it means to have a professional relationship with another human being. You chose to work with a person because you trust their judgment, their word, their ability to commit to something in conversation and follow through. An AI clone can't commit to anything. It can't be held to what it said. It can't own a decision.
When you email someone, you are asking to talk to that person. When you sit in a meeting with someone, you are expecting that person's attention and judgment. Especially with business to business, the relationship is the product. There is no relationship with AI.
Respect and social contracts aside, right now, AI does not have the general intelligence to perform the executive function needed to find productivity and connect the dots, soft skill, stakeholder alignment etc.
martythemaniak•2h ago