1. What you'll lose4/5

   Creators' work, used unless they object.

2. Condescension5/5

   'Overestimate the value of their specific content.'

3. Tone-deafness4/5

   'It's not like that's going to change the outcome of this stuff that much.'

4. Doom0/5

   None.

5. Hypocrisy0/5

   None.

Full time13 pitchforksof a possible 25

The occasion

The Verge interview with Alex Heath, around Meta Connect 2024, 25 September 2024.

Context

Asked by The Verge's Alex Heath about creators and publishers who object to their work being used to train AI, Zuckerberg said Meta would strike partnerships where content is valuable and otherwise would simply not use the content of those who opt out. He tied the view to Meta's disputes with news publishers.

Crowd reaction

Critical commentary

Futurism wrote that the comment 'will likely come as a slap in the face for those whose work is being used to create these models' and called it 'tone deaf'; a Data Leverage essay and a Substack by Katie Parrott argued it reveals 'a deeper dismissal of what individual creators bring to the table'. Music Ally was more neutral. No mass outrage was found, so this is critical commentary.

See the reaction

• Primary source, transcript
• The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg: creators and publishers ‘overestimate the value’ of their work for training AI
• The Verge: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on AR glasses, Orion, Ray-Bans and AI (Decoder interview, transcript)
• Music Ally: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg weighs in to debate on AI and fair use
• Futurism: Zuckerberg Says It’s Fine to Train AI on Your Data Because It Probably Has No Value Anyway
• Data Leverage: Is Zuckerberg right to say that your specific creative work has no value to AI?
• Where the exact words are printed