Meta AI bot used a billion times monthly: Mark Zuckerberg
SAN FRANCISCO - Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg touted the tech firm's generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) assistant, telling shareholders it is used by a billion people each month across its platforms.
Zuckerberg noted the milestone anew at Meta's annual gathering of shareholders and as the social media behemoth vies with Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and others to be a leader in Gen AI.
It was not clear how much Meta AI use involved people seeking out the chatbot versus passive users of Meta AI, as it is built into features in its family of apps.
Since Google debuted AI Overviews in search results a year ago, it has grown to more than 1.5 billion users, according to Google chief executive Sundar Pichai.
"That means Google Search is bringing Gen AI to more people than any other product in the world," Pichai said.
Google's AI Overviews automatically provide summaries of search results that appear instead of the previous practice of simply showing pages of blue links to relevant websites.
Pichai said last week that Google's dedicated Gemini AI app has more than 400 million monthly users.
Tech rivals are rapidly releasing new AI products despite ongoing challenges with preventing misinformation and establishing clear business models, and little sense of how the tech will affect society.
Meta unveiled its first standalone AI assistant app on April 29, giving users a direct path to its Gen AI models.
"A billion people are using Meta AI across our apps now, so we made a new standalone Meta AI app for you to check out," Meta CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted on Instagram at the time.
Zuckerberg said the app "is designed to be your personal AI" and would be primarily accessed through voice conversations with the interactions personalised to the individual user.
Use of Meta AI is growing fastest on WhatsApp, according to chief financial officer Susan Li.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
13 hours ago
- eNCA
Germany considers 10% tax on internet giants
Germany is weighing plans for a 10 percent digital tax for internet giants such as Alphabet and Meta, a senior official said Friday, despite the risk of stoking further trade tensions with the United States. "This is a question of tax justice," parliamentary state secretary in the digital ministry Philip Amthor told Die Welt newspaper. "Large digital corporations in particular are cleverly engaging in tax avoidance" while German businesses are "treated with no mercy, everything is taxed." "A fairer system must be created here so that this tax avoidance is addressed," he said about the plan to tax advertising revenue from platforms such as Meta's Instagram and Facebook. Germany's media and culture commissioner Wolfram Weimer said earlier the government was drafting a proposal for such a digital tax but would first invite Google and other big tech companies for talks. Weimer -- the former editor of Die Welt and other media -- on Thursday told Stern magazine that "the large American digital platforms like Alphabet/Google, Meta and others are on my agenda". He said he had "invited Google management and key industry representatives to meetings at the chancellery to examine alternatives, including possible voluntary commitments". "At the same time, we are preparing a concrete legislative proposal," Weimer added. This could be based on the model in Austria, which has a five percent tax, he said, adding that in Germany "we consider a 10 percent tax rate to be moderate and legitimate". He said that "monopoly-like structures have emerged that not only restrict competition but also over-concentrate media power. This puts media diversity at risk". "On the other hand, corporations in Germany are doing billion-dollar business with very high margins and have profited enormously from our country's media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure. "But they hardly pay any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to society."
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Meta AI bot used a billion times monthly: Mark Zuckerberg
DeepSeek AI China Zuckerberg noted the milestone anew at Meta's annual gathering of shareholders and as the social media behemoth vies with Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and others to be a leader in Gen AI. Image: RON AI Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg touted the tech firm's generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) assistant on Wednesday, telling shareholders it is used by a billion people each month across its platforms. Zuckerberg noted the milestone anew at Meta's annual gathering of shareholders and as the social media behemoth vies with Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and others to be a leader in Gen AI. It was not clear how much Meta AI use involved people seeking out the chatbot versus passive users of Meta AI, as it is built into features in its family of apps. Since Google debuted AI Overviews in search results a year ago, it has grown to more than 1.5 billion users, according to Google chief executive Sundar Pichai. "That means Google Search is bringing Gen AI to more people than any other product in the world," Pichai said. Google's AI Overviews are automatically provided summaries of search results that appear instead of the previous practice of simply showing pages of blue links to revelant websites. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Pichai said last week that Google's dedicated Gemini AI app has more than 400 million monthly users. Tech rivals are rapidly releasing new AI products despite ongoing challenges with preventing misinformation and establishing clear business models, and little sense of how the tech will affect society. Meta unveiled its first standalone AI assistant app on April 29, giving users a direct path to its Gen AI models. "A billion people are using Meta AI across our apps now, so we made a new standalone Meta AI app for you to check out," Meta CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg said in a video posted on Instagram at the time. Zuckerberg said the app "is designed to be your personal AI" and would be primarily accessed through voice conversations with the interactions personalized to the individual user. Use of Meta AI is growing fastest on WhatsApp, according to chief financial officer Susan Li.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Starlink's lobbying for SA licence raises serious concerns about Musk's influence
'Don't be evil' was once the moral hallmark of Silicon Valley — an aspirational ethos adopted by Google that suggested technology could advance without compromising human dignity, sovereignty, or global democratic values. Today, that ideal has been unceremoniously buried beneath the rising tide of corporate exceptionalism and geopolitical entanglements. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Elon Musk, whose growing tech empire — from satellite networks to artificial intelligence, and electric motor vehicles to social media platforms — exemplifies the disturbing intersection of private control and global influence. At the heart of this new frontier is Starlink, Musk's satellite internet service, which has become indispensable in some regions afflicted by conflict, authoritarian censorship, and poor public service delivery. Praised for enabling connectivity in remote areas, Starlink has also quietly assumed a role in modern warfare — serving as critical infrastructure in Ukraine's defence against Russian aggression. Yet this reliance proved perilous when, in 2023, Musk reportedly disabled Starlink access near Crimea, just as Ukrainian forces were preparing a counter-offensive. His rationale? A unilateral decision to avoid escalating the conflict with Russia. In that moment, a single billionaire — without consultation, oversight, or public mandate — undermined the strategic calculations of a sovereign nation fighting for its territorial integrity. The implications are chilling. A private actor, operating outside the realm of diplomacy or international law, made a battlefield decision that altered the trajectory of a war. It is a stark reminder that we are living in an era where corporate infrastructure can override national sovereignty and influence geopolitics. Not an isolated concern This is not an isolated concern. Musk's xAI and its AI chatbot Grok now position themselves as guardians of truth and reasoned discourse. But as these tools shape the way information is disseminated and consumed, we must ask: Truth according to whom? Grok and similar platforms are trained on vast datasets, filtered through invisible ideological frameworks, and deployed within commercial ecosystems that often reflect the strategic priorities of their creators and political masters. There is no neutral AI, just as there is no apolitical infrastructure when such tools can be selectively activated or withheld at moments of geopolitical consequence. The principal justification advanced by the United States government for its ban on Huawei and potential commercial restrictions on Tik Tok – which currently operates under the looming threat of regulatory decapitation — is the perceived risk that their telecommunications infrastructure could be exploited by the Chinese government for surveillance and espionage. This concern was amplified by several factors: the broader structural realities of China's state-corporate nexus, where companies may be compelled to cooperate with state intelligence under laws such as the 2017 National Intelligence Law. This pattern reveals a broader geopolitical trend: technological infrastructure is no longer seen as neutral, but rather as a potential vector of strategic influence. However, this scrutiny appears selectively applied. While Chinese firms are framed as Trojan Horses of authoritarian overreach, Western multinationals — despite demonstrable instances of surveillance complicity — are rarely subjected to the same level of scepticism or sanction. The challenge, therefore, lies not only in confronting genuine national security threats, but also in resisting the hypocritical instrumentalisation of 'security' as a pretext for economic protectionism or ideological supremacy. Starlink is currently licensed and operational in at least 18 African countries. Its footprint on the continent has expanded rapidly, with new national markets being integrated into the network at a pace that underscores both technological ambition and aggressive commercial diplomacy. However, this expansion has not been without controversy. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Starlink's eventual authorisation was reportedly secured under considerable external pressure — illustrating the coercive dynamics embedded in the US' transactional foreign policy doctrine. This doctrine often links development assistance, military support, or diplomatic favour to acquiescence in the adoption of US-aligned technologies. In such cases, the line between infrastructure development and geopolitical arm-twisting becomes increasingly blurred, raising questions about the digital sovereignty of African states and the long-term implications of dependence on privately controlled, foreign-owned critical infrastructure. Actively lobbying With Starlink actively lobbying for a licence to operate in South Africa, serious questions arise about the broader implications such an authorisation could have for national security, and constitutional policy imperatives, including equity and transformation. While the appeal of high-speed satellite internet — particularly for underserved rural areas — is undeniable, the risks associated with ceding critical digital infrastructure to a foreign, privately controlled entity warrant far greater scrutiny. Musk's public disdain for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — policies with strong parallels in South Africa's own constitutional commitment to redress and transformation — has been well documented. Under the ideological encouragement of US President Donald Trump, Musk has not only undermined DEI initiatives in the United States, but positioned himself as a vocal antagonist of progressive democratic values globally. Now consider the implications of that worldview being hardwired into a platform that might soon underpin critical public services in South Africa. Imagine a scenario in which the delivery of educational content to rural schools is throttled or suspended because the curriculum foregrounds the injustices of apartheid — a history Musk or his corporate emissaries may deem too 'woke'. Or picture a healthcare facility in a remote province losing connectivity because it provides telemedicine-based abortion services in compliance with South African law — services Musk personally opposes. These are not far-fetched hypotheticals. As mentioned above, in Ukraine, Musk infamously curtailed Starlink access at a critical juncture in the country's resistance against Russian invasion, unilaterally disabling coverage near Crimea to prevent what he characterised as an 'escalation'. That decision, made without democratic accountability, had tangible consequences on the battlefield and highlighted the peril of allowing a private, mercurial individual to function as a de facto arbiter of foreign policy. South Africa must therefore tread with caution. To license Starlink without a robust regulatory and oversight framework is to risk surrendering digital sovereignty to a man who has been described as an 'evil genius' with an unpredictable ideological agenda, a billionaire with a nexus to international white supremacy groups, and a proven track record of leveraging his infrastructure for political ends. At stake is more than just connectivity — it is the integrity of our national policies, the resilience of our democracy, and the right of sovereign states to chart their own developmental course without interference from unelected tech oligarchs. Deeper danger The deeper danger lies in the absence of democratic accountability. Neither the public nor elected officials have meaningful oversight over how these technologies are used — or withheld. As artificial intelligence, global connectivity, and space-based infrastructure become the battlegrounds of 21st-century geopolitics, the stakes are no longer theoretical. Lives are on the line, and so is the future of the international order. South Africa must resist becoming a passive recipient of technological imperialism. The rules that govern our digital future must be grounded not in double standards, but in mutual respect, national interest, and strategic foresight. If our legislature fails to exercise judicious oversight, we risk ceding sovereign decision-making to a handful of tech titans who increasingly act as unaccountable arbiters of war and peace, and who position themselves as imperious influencers of our economic development priorities and foreign policy priorities. Such a vacuum in regulatory vigilance would not only compromise national security but also undermine South Africa's constitutional commitment to equity, democracy, and self-determined progress. We must move urgently toward multilateral regulation, transparency standards, and enforceable digital sovereignty protections. States, particularly in the Global South, must resist becoming digital client-states to corporate fiefdoms masquerading as benevolent innovators. The evolution from 'don't be evil' to today's reality is not merely rhetorical. It marks the transition from ethical ambition to unchecked ambition. And if we fail to address the dangers now, particularly considering the US' mercurial diplomatic posture towards South Africa, we may soon find that the most consequential decisions in our constitutional democracy — about speech, security, economic development, and sovereignty — are no longer made in parliaments or courts, but in private boardrooms and encrypted servers. DM
