Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Mark Zuckerberg thinks AI fearmongering is bad. Elon Musk thinks Zuckerberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Ah, another classic debate about artificial intelligence.

Mark Zuckerberg (L) and Elon Musk.
Mark Zuckerberg (L) and Elon Musk.
Mark Zuckerberg (L) and Elon Musk.
David Ramos / Getty Images, Asa Mathat

Great minds don’t always think alike.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who isn’t afraid to speak his mind, shared some thoughts early Tuesday morning via Twitter that essentially bashed Mark Zuckerberg’s understanding of artificial intelligence, the kind of technology that helps computers think more like humans.

Facebook and other tech giants are scrambling to build this kind of technology, and Zuckerberg even built an AI assistant to help control his Palo Alto home. Musk, on the other hand, thinks AI could ultimately destroy mankind and send everyone scrambling to Mars to avoid machine overlords.

So both men feel strongly about the technology, but in his tweet on Tuesday, Musk dismissed Zuckerberg’s knowledge of AI as “limited,” a pretty sick burn in the world of super-intelligent tech geeks.

Why would Elon say such a thing?

Let’s rewind to earlier this month, when Musk spoke at a meeting of American governors and warned that AI was the “biggest risk we face as a civilization” and urged the government to adopt AI legislation before robots start walking down the street murdering people.

Fast-forward a week to Sunday evening, when Zuckerberg spent almost 85 minutes streaming live to Facebook from his backyard barbecue. When a viewer mentioned Musk and asked what Zuckerberg thought of the warnings, he downplayed the concerns of AI.

“I think people who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios — I don’t understand it,” Zuckerberg replied. “It’s really negative, and in some ways I think it’s pretty irresponsible.”

When Musk then saw Zuckerberg’s comments in a story posted to Twitter, he chimed in.

“I’ve talked to Mark about this. His understanding of the subject is limited,” Musk tweeted.

There it is. Two great Silicon Valley techies, sort-of feuding over the future of human civilization. It’s no Donald Trump vs. Rosie O’Donnell beef, but considering the players involved, it’s certainly a lot more interesting.


This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh