High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / evaluation

Published · transcript-backed

Mark Zuckerberg: evaluation

28 Sept 2023 Lex Fridman Podcast #398 – Mark Zuckerberg: First Interview in the Metaverse

“I mean, there are content policies and things like that in terms of what people are allowed to create, but I mean, a lot of the rules around physical… I think we try to have a society that is as free as possible, meaning that people can do as much of what they want unless you’re going to do damage to other people and infringe on their rights.”

— Mark Zuckerberg

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Mark Zuckerberg
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
evaluation
Recorded
28 Sept 2023
Publisher
Lex Fridman Podcast

Transcript context

…There might be some difficult philosophical and ethical questions we have to figure out as a society. Maybe you can comment on this. So the metaverse seems to enable, sort of unlock a lot of experiences that we don’t have in the physical world. And the question is what is and isn’t allowed in the metaverse? In video games, we allow all kinds of crazy stuff. And in physical reality, a lot of that is illegal. So where’s that line? Where’s that gray area between video game and physical reality? Do you have a sense of that? I mean, there are content policies and things like that in terms of what people are allowed to create, but I mean, a lot of the rules around physical… I think we try to have a society that is as free as possible, meaning that people can do as much of what they want unless you’re going to do damage to other people and infringe on their rights. And the idea of damage is somewhat different in a digital environment. I mean, when I get into some world with my friends, the first thing we start doing is shooting each other, which obviously we would not do in the physical world because you’d hurt each other. But in a game, it’s just fun. And even in the lobby of a game, it’s not even bearing on the game, it’s just kind of a funny sort of humorous thing to do. So it’s like, is that problematic? I don’t think so because fundamentally you’re not causing harm in that world. So I think that part of the question that I think we need to figure out is what are the ways where things could have been harmful in the physical world that we’ll now be freed from that? And therefore there should be fewer restrictions in the digital world. And then there might be new ways in which there could be harm in the digital world that there weren’t the case before. So there’s more anonymity. It’s when you show up to a restaurant or something, it’s like all the norms where you pay the bill at the end. It’s because you have one identity. And if you stiff them, then life is a repeat game and that’s not going to work out well for you. But in a digital world where you can be anonymous and show up in different ways, I think the incentive to act like a good citizen can be a lot less, and that causes a lot of issues and toxic behavior. So that needs to get sorted out. So I think in terms of what is allowed, I think you want to just look at what are the damages, but then there’s also other things that are not related to harm, less about what should be allowed and more about what will be possible that are more about the laws of physics. It’s like if you wanted to travel to see me in person, you’d have to get on a plane, and that would take a few hours to get here. Whereas we could just jump in a conference room and put on these headsets and we’re basically teleported into a space where it feels like we’re together. , and that would take a few hours to get here. Whereas we could just jump in a conference room and put on these headsets and we’re basically teleported into a space where it feels like we’re together. So that’s a very novel experience that it breaks down some things that previously would’ve defied the laws of physics for what it would take to get together. And I think that that will create a lot of new opportunities. One of the things that I’m curious about is there are all these debates right now about remote work or people being together. I think this gets us a lot closer to being able to work physically in different places, but actually have it feel like we’re together. So I think that the dream is that people will one day be able to just work wherever they want, but we’ll have all the same opportunities because you’ll be able to feel like you’re physically together. I think we’re not there today with just video conferencing and the basic technologies that we have, but I think part of the idea is that with something like this, over time, you could get closer to that and that would open up a lot of opportunities, right? Because then people could live physically where they want while still being able to get the benefits of being physically or feeling like you’re together. … to get the benefits of being physically or feeling like you’re together with people at work, all the ways that that helps to build more culture and build better relationships and build trust, which I think are real issues that if you’re not seeing people in person ever. So yeah, I don’t know. I think it’s very hard from first principles to think about all the implications of a technology like this and all the good and the things that you need to mitigate. So you try to do your best to envision what things are going to be like and accentuate the things that they’re going to be awesome and hopefully mitigate some of the downside things. But the reality is that we’re going to be building this out one year at a time. It’s going to take a while, so we’re going to just get to see how it evolves and what developers and different folks do with it.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence