Mark Zuckerberg’s recent comments about “personal” artificial superintelligence have left many scratching their heads—and for good reason. The concept seems fundamentally flawed from the outset, representing either a misunderstanding of what ASI actually means or a deliberate attempt to reshape the conversation around advanced AI.
The Definitional Problem
By its very nature, artificial superintelligence is the antithesis of “personal.” ASI, as traditionally defined, represents intelligence that vastly exceeds human cognitive abilities across all domains. It’s a system so advanced that it would operate on a scale and with capabilities that transcend individual human needs or control. The idea that such a system could be personally owned, controlled, or dedicated to serving individual users contradicts the fundamental characteristics that make it “super” intelligent in the first place.
Think of it this way: you wouldn’t expect to have a “personal” climate system or a “personal” internet. Some technologies, by their very nature, operate at scales that make individual ownership meaningless or impossible.
Strategic Misdirection?
So why is Zuckerberg promoting this seemingly contradictory concept? There are a few possibilities worth considering:
Fear Management: Perhaps this is an attempt to make ASI seem less threatening to the general public. By framing it as something “personal” and controllable, it becomes less existentially frightening than the traditional conception of ASI as a potentially uncontrollable superintelligent entity.
Definitional Confusion: More concerning is the possibility that this represents an attempt to muddy the waters around AI terminology. If companies can successfully redefine ASI to mean something more like advanced personal assistants, they might be able to claim ASI achievement with systems that are actually closer to AGI—or even sophisticated but sub-AGI systems.
When Zuckerberg envisions everyone having their own “Sam” (referencing the AI assistant from the movie “Her”), he might be describing something that’s impressive but falls well short of true superintelligence. Yet by calling it “personal ASI,” he could be setting the stage for inflated claims about technological breakthroughs.
The “What Comes After ASI?” Confusion
This definitional muddling extends to broader discussions about post-ASI futures. Increasingly, people are asking “what happens after artificial superintelligence?” and receiving answers that suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.
Take the popular response of “embodiment”—the idea that the next step beyond ASI is giving these systems physical forms. This only makes sense if you imagine ASI as somehow limited or incomplete without a body. But true ASI, by definition, would likely have capabilities so far beyond human comprehension that physical embodiment would be either trivial to achieve if desired, or completely irrelevant to its functioning.
The notion of ASI systems walking around as “embodied gods” misses the point entirely. A superintelligent system wouldn’t need to mimic human physical forms to interact with the world—it would have capabilities we can barely imagine for influencing and reshaping reality.
The Importance of Clear Definitions
These conceptual muddles aren’t just academic quibbles. As we stand on the brink of potentially revolutionary advances in AI, maintaining clear definitions becomes crucial for several reasons:
- Public Understanding: Citizens need accurate information to make informed decisions about AI governance and regulation.
- Policy Making: Lawmakers and regulators need precise terminology to create effective oversight frameworks.
- Safety Research: AI safety researchers depend on clear definitions to identify and address genuine risks.
- Progress Measurement: The tech industry itself needs honest benchmarks to assess real progress versus marketing hype.
The Bottom Line
Under current definitions, “personal ASI” remains an oxymoron. If Zuckerberg and others want to redefine these terms, they should do so explicitly and transparently, explaining exactly what they mean and how their usage differs from established understanding.
Until then, we should remain skeptical of claims about “personal superintelligence” and recognize them for what they likely are: either conceptual confusion or strategic attempts to reshape the AI narrative in ways that may not serve the public interest.
The future of artificial intelligence is too important to be clouded by definitional games. We deserve—and need—clearer, more honest conversations about what we’re actually building and where we’re actually headed.
