Fuck AI

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

They can’t. He owns a controlling stake in the company. He could fire all of them.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

He could, but then the stockholders would likely throw a costly lawsuit at the company for poor governance.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Which is why he won’t unless they try to force his hand. Instead he’ll play politics and maybe fire 1 if he needs to stop a rebellion.

parent

[–] loppy@fedia.io 19 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Is this article slop? They say "As the Wall Street Journal reported..." and then link to the Washington Post.

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

It’s all AI slop.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Lanusensei87@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

parent

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Probably just good old fashioned human error, in this case. The WSJ really did report on this story, including on the contingency agreement; I'd bet that the Futurism article was mostly written using the WaPo article (which is pretty similar to the WSJ article); but at the last minute, the writer decided they liked the WSJ reporting better and switched the credit without realizing they also needed to switch the link.

parent

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

different newspaper frontends for the same propoganda backend maybe?

parent

[–] annoying_cyclist@programming.dev 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It's almost like dual class stock structures that give founders perpetual veto power over their boards might not be the best idea.

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

It can go both ways.

Him having the control to do things like this and having the vision for it can allow for big breakthroughs. People might shut something down early rather than persever otherwise.

They can also fail spectacularly when they cant be stopped

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Yeah, but that kind of benefit of the doubt has to go out the window when a spectacular failure like Metaverse flops. I understand golden parachutes and such, but Zuck clearly doesn't understand what the market wants anymore; so you have to at least take the magnetic box off of the car so you can hide the keys when he comes home drunk.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ya, you think after the disaster of the metaverse he'd maybe step back and be more cautious, at least for awhile. Not double down immediately on the next thing.

parent

[–] Cellery 7 points 2 weeks ago

This one too. Post once. Not Tence.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Didn't they just help him prepare to pay that one time billionaire tax? Parasites, all of them.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago*

All Zuckerbergs business ideas have proven to be absolute 100% dumpster fires. Metaverserse, VR glasses, AI. All failed. All expensive. I agree with OP, why keep him around at all? He's an idiot.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

I think he has it set up so they can't replace him