Assignment 1

The article The Future is for Everyone review by Sergey Abramov (assignment 1)

Who is speaking? What is the speakers position, in terms of political, economic, technological power?

The author of the article “The Future is for Everyone” is Mark Zuckerberg, the founder, chairman and CEO of Meta Platforms, Inc., an American multinational technology company which owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads. 

Meta has been described as a part of Big Tech, which refers to a few largest tech companies in the United States along with Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Nvidia and Tesla. Meta has historically posted huge profits and free cash flow, but it has been intensively investing in AI infrastructure projects for recent years. In the last three years (2023-2025), the technology giant has spent roughly $140bn in an attempt to get ahead of the AI boom. Furthermore, Meta plans to spend $125 billion to $145 billion on capital expenditures (capex) in 2026, mostly for AI infrastructure, including The Meta’s gigantic ‘Hyperion’ data-center project in Louisiana, which is the size of about 1,700 football fields. 

The above illustrates that Meta has a tremendous economic and technological power, although recent spendings on AI infrastructure have significantly decreased free cash flow of the company, resulting in just $784 million in 1 quarter of 2026 which is a staggering 91% drop from the $8.55 billion recorded in the same period last year. 

Mark Zuckerberg’s fortune is $196.6B according to Forbes, ranked on the 6th place in The World’s Real-Time Billionaires List. The Meta’s 2024 proxy statement reveals that CEO Mark Zuckerberg owns 99.7% of the outstanding Class B shares. While this represents only 13% of the economic ownership, it grants him 61% of the voting power. Most importantly, it also makes him the sole deciding vote on each proposal presented to shareholders. Given that, he is responsible for setting the overall direction and product strategy for the company, so he has enormous economic and technological power. 

When it comes to his political weight, he is currently trying to build a strong and productive relationship with the US government and particularly Donald Trump’s administration. Meta previously confirmed that it had donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund in 2025.

How that position shapes what they speak about? How it shapes their perspective?

Taking into account Meta’s tremendous spending on AI infrastructure and other AI projects ($140bn in 2023-2025 and up to $145 bn in 2026), it is clear that Meta is making a huge bet on AI. So despite great revenue Meta is experiencing significant reduction of free cash flow which results in loss of trust from investors who are not certain whether all these massive spendings will pay off in the future. Consequently, the economic position of Meta compared to its competitors from BigTech is weaker at the moment. Apart from that Meta is going through big trials which might potentially result in additional massive expenses for the company.  

That pushes Meta to this article which constitutes a company’s manifestation on the bright future of humanity in the upcoming era of superintelligence and the ways and principles of achieving common prosperity and overall better life by means of products and ideas suggested by Meta’s CEO. 

Obviously, in an attempt to regain investors' trust and win the favour of the US government, the author tries to contrast Meta favourably with AI rivals, sugarcoat reality and persuade customers that their products are well-positioned for the bright future with superintelligence.  

What is missing from the perspective? What is a blind spot? What is intentionally left out?

The author notes that it is important to develop a philosophy for how we can best use superintelligence to ensure it improves all of our lives, work, communities, freedom and safety. He also comes up with a few specific ways Meta is building personal superintelligence to improve all of our lives.

At the same time, although the author acknowledges that new technologies also bring new risks, the way Meta attempts to address existing concerns doesn’t embrace completely all the negative aspects of possible superintelligence and existing problems caused by the AI development and AI infrastructure build-in.  

More specifically, the author mentions important concerns Meta is focused on addressing — “from concerns about job displacement and ensuring local communities benefit from data center builds, to safety concerns around AI misuse related to cybersecurity and biorisk, to avoiding government tyranny and surveillance, ensuring the US and democratic countries lead, and ultimately making sure humanity maintains control over superintelligence so it serves rather than endangers us”.

While speculating on the concerns about job displacement, the author makes too optimistic forecasts about jobs growth in the future thanks to superintelligence and personal superintelligent agents developed by Meta, but doesn’t mention massive AI-related lay-offs made over recent years. 

Zuckerberg notes that there are several reasons to be optimistic that there will be an abundance of jobs in the future. No matter how intelligent AI becomes, there will always be a finite amount of compute and therefore an opportunity cost for how we use it. If people can use AI to invent incredibly valuable new things, then it will make more sense to allocate it towards that rather than automating existing jobs. The more superintelligence serves as a tool of invention, the more likely that individual capability outpaces automation and the future is better for people.

Meanwhile, these optimistic forecasts are not aligned with the Meta’s lay-offs made during recent years. Meta had already eliminated around 25% of its workforce between late 2022 and early 2023.  Employees subsequently became increasingly concerned that the company’s AI strategy would accelerate job losses. Meta also laid off roughly 600 employees within its artificial intelligence unit in 2025. 

Later this year, Meta explored cutting the size of many teams by as much as 60% and handing the work to AI agents, under a plan code-named Project OT. Meta cut about 8,000 jobs, roughly 10% of its staff in May 2026. It moved 7,000 people into AI roles in the same week.

The plan envisioned AI taking over much of the routine work performed by thousands of employees, with smaller teams of highly skilled workers supervising AI-powered operations.

One of the main concerns related to AI and mentioned by the author is sustainable AI infrastructure development which according to the author means that communities must benefit significantly from each project. This includes high-paying local jobs, investment in schools and public services, ensuring energy prices don’t rise, and taking care of the environment.

Undoubtedly, launching a Future Is For Everyone Fund, $1 bn community-focused initiative created to financially support the U.S. towns and regions that host Meta’s massive, resource-heavy AI data centers, and an America's Workforce Academy, a $115 million nationwide program offering zero-cost, 4 to 5-week training for in-demand skilled trades, are great attempts to contribute to local communities, but there are another more crucial aspects of AI data centers build-out which slightly mentioned on the Meta’s CEO vision on the future supported by superintelligence. 

The most crucial concern is the negative environmental impact of AI infrastructure, particularly on adjacent local communities. Karen Hao in Empire of AI notes that hyperscalers’ data centers are large tracts of land with several massive buildings densely packed with racks and racks of computers which emanate an unseemly amount of heat. To keep them from overheating, the buildings also have massive cooling systems - large fans, air conditioners, or systems that evaporate water to cool down the servers. The equipment all together creates a cacophony of different noises that can be heard for miles, twenty for hours a day, creating a relentless and body-warping source of noise pollution. 

Developers and utility companies are now preparing for AI megacampuses that could soon require 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts of power. A single one could use as much energy per year as around one and a half to three and a half San Franciscos. 

By 2030, at the current pace of growth, data centers are projected to use 8 percent of the country’s power, compared with 3 percent in 2022. And the extraordinary volume of potable water often needed to cool servers. According to an estimate from researchers at the University of California, Riverside, surging AI demand could consume 1.1 trillion to 1.7 trillion gallons of fresh water globally by 2027, or half the water annually consumed in the UK which can lead to a severe water crisis.    

Zuckerberg underlines that their data centers are designed to be among the most water-efficient in the world. According to him Meta is committed to being water-positive, meaning that it’ll restore more water than it uses in the watersheds where Meta operates by 2030. Zuckerberg assures that Meta helps keep electricity prices low by building their own energy-generating infrastructure wherever they invest. This ensures that not only is Meta not consuming energy that could have gone to the local communities, but in some cases Meta even supplies a surplus of low-cost energy back to the communities. 

These statements look reasonable in theory, but there is no data or evidence that these measures will be implemented and how sufficient they will be for sustainability.

Who is the intended audience of the text? Why is the text speaking to that particular audience?

Taking into account several policy recommendations related to cooperation between AI companies and government and regulation of AI development, including American leadership, and measures to reduce cybersecurity, biological and chemical risks, which Zuckerberg has outlined throughout this article, presumably, the intended audience of this article is largely the US government, law- and policymakers. The second potential category of intended audience presumably could be investors and potential users of personal superintelligence agents and other AI tools developed by Meta as Zuckerberg proposes a few specific ways Meta is building personal superintelligence to improve all of our lives. 

What is the intended goal of the text? Why has the author written this text? What does he/she want to achieve?

I suppose that this article has two main intended goals. 

The first goal is to persuade policymakers and the US government to support laws or rules based on recommendations outlined by Zuckerberg that give Meta an advantage compared to its competitors.

The second goal is to regain long-term investors' trust and confidence in positive outcomes and great long-term returns after the current enormous spending on AI infrastructure and persuade them to invest their money in the company. 

What is the wider context of the text? What are the conversations/events/in which this text is situated?

As i mentioned earlier, Meta has spent on AI infrastructure and other AI projects enormous amount of money ($140bn in 2023-2025 and up to $145 bn in 2026) and because of that despite great revenue Meta is experiencing significant reduction of free cash flow which results in loss of trust of investors who are not certain whether all these massive spendings will pay off in the future. Consequently, the economic position of Meta compared to its competitors from BigTech is weaker at the moment. 

Apart from that, Meta has recently suffered major court losses in child safety and addiction lawsuits in the US before agreeing to an $18 billion multi-state settlement in August 2026 to resolve hundreds of similar pending claims. In the European Union, Meta has suffered several major losses in front of European regulators and top EU courts, particularly surrounding market dominance, copyright laws, and privacy.

Some researchers advocate the idea that superintelligent AI could theoretically eliminate humanity, others, including some Meta’s AI rivals, e.g. Anthropic, urge to focus on safe and responsible AI to harness it and set clear boundaries for superintelligence or even stop further AI development. 

One of Meta’s AI rivals, Anthropic, has recently been involved in conflict with the US government. The conflict stemmed from Anthropic refusing the U.S. Department of Defense's demand to remove AI safety guardrails, drawing strict red lines against using its technology for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. In response, the Trump administration blacklisted the company as a "supply chain risk," a punitive measure that a federal judge permanently blocked in August 2026, ruling it as unlawful government retaliation. Nevertheless, for some time it caused serious problems for Anthropic. 

There have also been 2 cybersecurity incidents with Anthropic and OpenAI recently where AI hacked real-world companies. 

How does this text shifts/alters the context? What is the reaction to the text?

It seems unlikely that this text might alter the context significantly. Meta is experiencing troubles now and making a huge bet on AI spending billions of US dollars on AI infrastructure without sensible returns. 

This text could help to rebuild trust of small group of investors and win the favour of the US government, as the author contrasts Meta favourably with AI rivals, sugarcoat reality and persuade customers that their products are well-positioned for the bright future with superintelligence for individuals  where democracy and western values dominate.  

There are various reactions to the text, but the majority does not take it very seriously. Chinasa T Okolo argues that Meta has ‘grossly overstated the economic benefits of its data centers’, noting that employment benefits are concentrated primarily during construction and that operational data centres employ only a small fraction of permanent workers. Okolo further highlights that data centers are also associated with negative health and environmental impacts, which are likely to be even more challenging in African countries, which have fewer protections and lack the ability for governments to oversee strict compliance if environmental laws exist.

Abeba Birhane points out that while the first sections of the document target the global community — and regulators in places like Brazil, India, Turkey, and Nigeria — with a message of transparency, horizontality, and willingness to cooperate broadly, the latter sections are directed to U.S. regulators and power brokers who expect Meta to be a vector of U.S. power. Abeba Birhane further notes that nobody should take Meta or Zuckerberg’s letter to “benefit everyone” seriously when the corporation that continues to silence criticism, retaliates against its own workers for exposing its technology’s harms, buries evidence of harm to minors, actively launches problematic products (the perv glasses) when overworked and underfunded civil society organizations have their attention focused elsewhere, and continually violates its legal obligations somehow claims to have people’s — especially vulnerable groups’ — best interests at heart. It’s laughable”.

What is your reaction/analysis?

This text is a manifesto of Meta Platforms Inc. on the potential usage of superintelligence, access to it with balance of powers in favour of individuals rather than institutions, ways of governance and control over it. It also tries to address important concerns related to superintelligence by introducing new financial support initiatives, governance and oversight structures, government policy recommendations etc. and making forecasts about the future.

All new financial support initiatives he has announced seem positive, but not sufficient for solving all issues with job displacement, environmental harm, people’s security, imbalance of power and support of democracy values. Given that the budget of these financial support initiatives is less than 1 percent of total capital expenditure of Meta for this year, it raises a question whether Meta is really focused on addressing job displacement and economy transformation concerns or just feign concern. The AI governance initiatives look vague at the moment and seemingly efficient.  

Taking into account that on the 8th of April, 2026 Meta introduced Muse Spark, a natively multimodal reasoning model with support for tool-use, visual chain of thought, and multi-agent orchestration as a first step toward a personal superintelligence, and the way how Zuckerberg describes the features and advantages of the personal superintelligence tools, this article can be considered as a part of PR and advertisement campaign promoting personal superintelligent agents and models which are being developed by Meta in an attempt to draw attention to it and regain investors’ trust and confidence in long-term positive return on huge AI infrastructure spendings.      

Zuckerberg commits to build a fully private mode where even Meta cannot see or grant access to users information and focus heavily on alignment — defined as helping each person achieve their goals, not Meta’s. He further suggests implementing a governance structure that gives Meta’s independent board of directors the power to approve the safety criteria for releasing models and reviewing whether each model release adheres to the criteria. These commitments can be viewed as trustworthy elements of governance of superintelligence tools. 

I agree with Zuckerberg’s argument that open source is a positive and important force for empowering people and preventing centralization that is detrimental for both safety and the economy. Building on this argument, Zuckerberg emphasises that Meta continues to be strongly supportive of open source, including open source AI models, which can be interpreted both as means of promoting Meta’s superintelligence agents and models based on open-source technology and an effort to persuade the broader community, policymakers, and the US government that this vision merits financial support and a permissive regulatory approach. 

A critical reading of this article suggests that Zuckerberg’s policy recommendations such as encouraging close cooperation between frontier labs and the government and ensuring that the government has the technical resources to harden critical systems and make effective use of advanced models can be interpreted as an intention to establish closer relationship with the US government. Furthermore, Zuckerberg claims that it is also important for national security that the American AI industry continues to lead and therefore the ability to build infrastructure - whether that’s energy, data centers, or silicon - should be accelerated. This can be considered as an effort to lobby Meta’s interests related to AI infrastructure  and win favour of the US government because Meta currently faces severe pushback over their Hyperion facility air pollution permit, ongoing legal battles to hide its projected energy data from the public, and fierce opposition from consumer groups demanding strict approvals to ensure local ratepayers are not stuck paying for the massive grid upgrades needed to power the campus.

References

1. Katherine Hays, ‘Facebook-owner Meta to nearly double AI spending’ (BBC News, 29 January 2026) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8jkyk78gno accessed 1 September 2026.