My "expert" (/s) conclusion of Zuck is that he's a kid who knew some PHP and got really lucky that a website he made went "viral". He's got billions but is clueless, e.g. blowing a lot of money on animated VR avatars "because it's the future", and then blowing lots of money on AI. To be fair that's what the other dumb tech billionaires are doing too, they're building datacenters full of GPUs because they think throwing money at LLM will get them AGI, and they're desperate to be first.
(And no, I don't know if they'll reach AGI, my uninformed bet is: no).
> they're building datacenters full of GPUs because they think throwing money at LLM will get them AGI, and they're desperate to be first.
Another factor (which can also be seen in the "metaverse" business) is that how our investment/economy system makes these companies "need" [0] to always be a "growth stock" with something even bigger, even after they're already enormous quasi-monopolies.
Myspace had certain problems and probably didn't scale well, it had UX problems and management problems, combine that with the fact people wanted better granularity of privacy settings (though to be fair, Myspace was decent about it. There was a publically visible wall, but, still) and Facebook seemed to offer that, but of course Zuckerberg continually subverts the settings because he does not care about privacy (Facebook actively has switched people from 'friends only' to 'friends of friends' or 'public', multiple times), and also the fact Facebook apparently built a tool early on to import your contacts to Facebook from Myspace, but, of course, not the other way around
Google later offered a prompt in their own services, because Facebook was hoovering up contacts or... something, I forget
Zuckerberg actively wants a monopoly. He's, in my estimation, a sociopath. He got lucky, but 'lucky' also means 'internet 2006'. If you steal the Winklevoss' product (something he apparently also did with 'Metaverse'. The twins meant it in some sort of bitcoin sense, Zuckerberg co-opted it) you too can capture the literally entire global market, because the world was just coming online in those years
> Zuckerberg actively wants a monopoly. He's, in my estimation, a sociopath.
Fully agree. Facebook apps on Android can/could scan what apps are installed on the phone, and they could see if another social media app's install base was growing. He bought Instagram, he bought WhatsApp, he copied the Snapchat concept of "24 hour stories" when they refused the purchase.
TBH if I had the billions, I'm not sure I'd be any different (at least with the monopoly, I sure as hell wouldn't be blowing it on metaverse).
Apparently buying up everything is "brilliant acquisitions" and something to be celebrated. I don't get it. People just want him to succeed no matter what even after he's shown his true colors
(And no, I don't know if they'll reach AGI, my uninformed bet is: no).