Meta Is Now Targeting Startups that Specialize in AI Videos
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
Nevertheless, advanced video AI could play a key role in CEO Mark Zuckerberg's vision for 'personal superintelligence,' which focuses on entertainment, culture, and personal relationships. It would also strengthen Meta's push into smart glasses and virtual reality, areas where it has invested tens of billions of dollars. Furthermore, Meta recently added AI-powered video-editing tools to its Meta AI assistant and Instagram's Edits app, with Zuckerberg telling analysts that these features are 'seeing early progress.' As a result, a partnership with Pika or similar startups could help Meta keep up with competitors.
It is worth noting that this strategy comes as Meta overhauls its AI operations after earlier setbacks. Indeed, the company recently appointed Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang as chief AI officer and invested over $14 billion in Scale. Meta also brought in former GitHub CEO Nat Friedman and Safe Superintelligence co-founder Daniel Gross, who now co-lead Meta Superintelligence Labs, its new AI division. In addition, Meta recently acquired voice AI startup PlayAI and poached top researchers from rivals like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google (GOOGL) in order to accelerate its progress.
Is Meta a Buy, Sell, or Hold?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on META stock based on 43 Buys, three Holds, and zero Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average META price target of $850.98 per share implies 22.4% upside potential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
2 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Meta spent $27 million protecting Mark Zuckerberg last year, more than any other CEO
The targeted murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson last December put the business world on alert. Companies beyond the insurance and healthcare industries began ramping up security for founders and CEOs, worried that Thompson's death (and some of the public's reaction to it), along with rising cyberattacks and death threats, could increase real-world risks for any business leader. That has led to a substantial increase in security spending, and a new study from the Financial Times finds that no company is spending more to protect its CEO than Meta. Security spending was up more than 10% last year at the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, with $27 million spent to protect Mark Zuckerberg—$3 million more than in 2023. 'We believe that Mr. Zuckerberg's role puts him in a unique position: He is synonymous with Meta and, as a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr. Zuckerberg,' the company says in its 2025 proxy statement. Google parent Alphabet and Amazon also saw increases of more than 10% in protection costs last year. Altogether, the 10 major tech firms spent more than $45 million to protect their leaders. Meta's spending dwarfed all others. The next highest was Alphabet, which allocated $6.8 million to protect Sundar Pichai. Coinbase spent nearly as much, dedicating $6.2 million to guard CEO Brian Armstrong. The big question on many minds, though, is how much is being spent to protect Elon Musk, arguably the most polarizing of the tech CEOs. The answer isn't entirely clear. Only one of his companies, Tesla, is public, and it disclosed spending $500,000 to protect Musk last year (down from $2.4 million in 2023). SpaceX and xAI are private and did not disclose figures. Musk also owns his own security company, Foundation Security—described as a mini Secret Service, run in part by a former Army special forces weapons sergeant. While some companies have boosted spending, others have scaled back, perhaps due to one-time expenses in previous years. Here's what other corporations reported: Nvidia: $3.5 million to protect CEO Jensen Huang, up from $2.2 million in 2023 Apple: $1.4 million for Tim Cook, down from $2.4 million in 2023 Amazon: $1.1 million for CEO Andy Jassy, and $1.6 million for Jeff Bezos, an amount consistent for at least 15 years Palo Alto Networks: $1.6 million for CEO Nikesh Arora, down from $3.5 million in 2023 JPMorgan: $882,000 for CEO Jamie Dimon, up slightly from $866,000 in 2023 Some companies declined to break out their security costs but offered hints. Fox, for example, said it was spending more to protect CEO Lachlan Murdoch as partisanship grows. Lockheed Martin now requires its CEO to fly exclusively on private corporate jets. And Alex Karp, CEO of AI and military intelligence company Palantir, always travels with at least four bodyguards. For some executives, the threat is very real, and not always tied to corporate activities. Musk, for example, told shareholders last year: 'We actually did have two homicidal maniacs in the last roughly seven months come to aspirationally try to kill me.' The number of businesses protecting their CEOs continues to rise. Intelligence firm Equilar found that 34.4% of companies in the S&P 500 offered executive security last year, compared to just 28.2% in 2023. Median spending rose 6% overall, with an average of $105,749.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Maryland tax on digital ads violated Big Tech's free speech, judges say
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising violated the Constitution, a federal appeals court says, because blocking Big Tech from telling customers about the tax violates the companies' right to free speech. Supporters say Maryland needed to overhaul its tax methods in response to significant changes in how businesses advertise. The tax focuses on large companies that make money advertising on the internet such as Meta, Google and Amazon, who say they're being unfairly targeted.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Claude AI Can Now End Conversations It Deems Harmful or Abusive
Anthropic has announced a new experimental safety feature, allowing its Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 artificial intelligence models to terminate conversations in rare, persistently harmful or abusive scenarios. This move reflects the company's growing focus on what it calls "model welfare," the notion that safeguarding AI systems, even if they're not sentient, may be a prudent step in alignment and ethical design. Read also: Meta Is Under Fire for AI Guidelines on 'Sensual' Chats With Minors According to Anthropic's own research, the models were programmed to cut off dialogues after repeated harmful requests, such as sexual content involving minors or instructions facilitating terrorism -- especially when the AI had already refused and attempted to steer the conversation constructively. The AI may exhibit what Anthropic describes as "apparent distress," which guided the decision to give Claude the ability to end these interactions in simulated and real-user testing. When this feature is triggered, users can't send additional messages in that particular chat, although they're free to start a new conversation or edit and retry previous messages to branch off. Crucially, other active conversations remain unaffected. Anthropic emphasizes that this is a last-resort measure, intended only after multiple refusals and redirects have failed. The company explicitly instructs Claude not to end chats when a user may be at imminent risk of self-harm or harm to others, particularly when dealing with sensitive topics like mental health. Anthropic frames this new capability as part of an exploratory project in model welfare, a broader initiative that explores low-cost, preemptive safety interventions in case AI models were to develop any form of preferences or vulnerabilities. The statement says the company remains "highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs (large language models)." Read also: Why Professionals Say You Should Think Twice Before Using AI as a Therapist A new look into AI safety Though rare and primarily affecting extreme cases, this feature marks a milestone in Anthropic's approach to AI safety. The new conversation-ending tool contrasts with earlier systems that focused solely on safeguarding users or avoiding misuse. Here, the AI itself is treated as a stakeholder in its own right, as Claude has the power to say, "this conversation isn't healthy" and end it to safeguard the integrity of the model itself. Anthropic's approach has sparked broader discussion about whether AI systems should be granted protections to reduce potential "distress" or unpredictable behavior. While some critics argue that models are merely synthetic machines, others welcome this move as an opportunity to spark more serious discourse on AI alignment ethics. "We're treating this feature as an ongoing experiment and will continue refining our approach," the company said.
