No, Mark Zuckerberg, the future is not (yet) for everyone

Zuckerberg also argues that distributing superintelligence to individuals could help prevent excessive institutional power. Unfortunately, distributing AI through a private corporation does not necessarily decentralise power. If Meta distributes powerful AI to individuals, it may expand users’ capabilities all while simultaneously strengthening Meta’s institutional power, market position, and control over the technology. The issue now is not whether superintelligence should be widely distributed, but who controls that distribution, under what safeguards, and to whose benefit. Widespread access to Meta’s AI is not necessarily the same as democratising superintelligence.

This concern is especially pronounced in Southeast Asia, where technology cannot be separated from diverse political systems, institutional arrangements, and levels of regulatory capacity. If Meta becomes a major intermediary through which individuals and governments access superintelligence, its role could extend well beyond providing technology to shaping how it is used and governed. The central question is whether distribution would genuinely disperse power or simply shift more power towards the corporation that controls the technology.

There is another dimension to making AI available to “everyone” – that is, whether the technology indeed understands everyone. Southeast Asia is linguistically and culturally diverse. AI can be widely accessible while still reflecting the assumptions, languages, and priorities of societies where its data and development are concentrated. Large language models such as Singapore’s SEA-LION (Opens in new window), developed around Southeast Asian languages and cultural contexts, show what more locally grounded AI development can look like. Distribution without representation risks making AI more accessible without making it more locally relevant.

Technology can amplify human capabilities, but it can also amplify existing inequalities and harms. The question, then, is whether everyone having access to superintelligence would actually make society better, and under what conditions it could make things worse.

For Southeast Asia, access is only the baseline. Who benefits, who bears the risks, and who has the power to shape how the technology is used will depend on infrastructure, skills, institutions, and whether AI reflects the region’s needs. That sets a much higher bar – one that cannot be decided and fulfilled by Silicon Valley alone.