#21 Society and Technology

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in his roadmap for the future of artificial intelligence, outlined made statements. While nearly the entire tech world has focused its attention on machines achieving superintelligence, Zuckerberg’s vision appears to diverge. His vision is centered not on machines themselves, but on empowering humans with “personal superintelligence” through machine assistance.

“Personal Superintelligence” for Humans

In a shared message, Zuckerberg indicates that the coming era is not as distant as it may seem. Although these developments may appear aligned with current tech industry trends, they are often exaggerated beyond actual technical progress, driven more by sectoral objectives.

“Over the past few months, we have begun to see the first signs that our AI systems are starting to improve themselves,” Zuckerberg writes. “This advancement is still slow for now, but undeniable. Superintelligence is on the horizon.”

But what does Zuckerberg want this for? It is not hard to see that he is not merely talking about an AI that automates office tasks. Meta’s vision seems far more personal. It appears to envision a future where technology supports not just productivity, but individual growth.

According to his words, the real breakthrough lies here:

“Everyone having a personal superintelligence that helps them achieve their own goals, create what they want to see in the world, experience the adventures they desire, become a better friend to those they love, and transform into the person they aspire to be.”

At this point, Zuckerberg clearly sets a direction radically different from the rest of the industry. He believes some companies are centralizing superintelligence to automate all valuable tasks and leave humans merely as recipients of its outputs. Meta, by contrast, appears to place the individual at the center. The assumption is that progress must always stem from people pursuing their own dreams, and that genuine development cannot emerge from the byproducts of hyper-efficient machines.

Yet whether this vision will truly lead to change remains an enigma. General debates about artificial intelligence have long dominated the tech industry’s headlines. Almost daily, we are left with the impression that a model has reached near-ideal intelligence levels and is about to master every issue tied to human cognition.

Zuckerberg’s announcement is, above all, a skillful move to dispel this foggy cloud that has settled over the industry. Yet the claim made by his rhetoric itself is quite ambiguous. For a long time, many human abilities and needs have already evolved in tandem with machine interaction, following a consistent trajectory of development.

Thus, even when we think of human superintelligence, we do so within the context of interaction with machines. From within such an architectural framework, the so-called shift in centrality that Zuckerberg describes will not be a true transformation, but merely a change in rhetoric. When human superintelligence is conceived alongside machine superintelligence, the ambiguity becomes even more apparent. What does human superintelligence even mean?

One of the most striking points in Zuckerberg’s statements is the idea that everyone will be able to create what they wish to see in the world. To what extent is the notion that humanity needs superintelligence for individual and societal well-being valid? Would it truly benefit us to have the ability to create everything we desire? Would we be content in a scenario where our every wish is fulfilled, where the gap between desire and capability has vanished, as often depicted in utopian fantasies?

For hundreds of years, humanity has struggled to determine the place of material conditions in human life—conditions that have profoundly shaped historical trajectories. This effort has led people at times toward ascetic practices and at other times toward centering the material world. Now, there is a temptation to believe that if we could achieve all our desires, reach all our goals, and instantly begin living the life we want, then our critical relationship with the world would be resolved and everything would instantly fall into place.

Yet at the heart of meaning lies the inability to fully encompass the absolute nature of being human. Depth in our relationships with others arises precisely from distance. Not being able to reach certain things, the existence of boundaries, failing to create what we want—these are vital indicators of our potential. Otherwise, having the power to achieve everything in the world and across time would render our power powerless over anything.

The presence of distance and obstacles enables the construction of meaning and the emergence of voice. Therefore, in a plane where we can achieve everything and create whatever we want, what we will get is not harmony, but homogenization.

According to conventional interpretations of this vision, in the future we will spend less time struggling with software and more time creating and connecting. Yet the homogenization driven by superintelligence may cause us to lose the very capacity to summon the voice we need to connect and to say something new—precisely because it eliminates the silence from which that voice emerges.

For now, setting aside how it functions, if a model called superintelligence could elevate humans beyond their current abilities by erasing differences and leveling possibilities, then the intentions and direction of such a transformation deserve serious debate.

If Artificial Intelligence Becomes an Architect

For many years, building cities has been a slow, complex process, often relying on speculative planning. Especially before the 20th century, traditional architectural structures defined the character of cities, embedding cultural influences in architectural details. Evaluating this entire process required immense labor.

Can such a burdensome process be handed over to machines? Is it possible to test dozens of future scenarios even before a single shovel hits the ground? Today, it is possible to say that artificial intelligence has opened the door to such possibilities. Shah Muhammad, working in the field of AI and engineering, shares his insights on how cities of the future will be shaped:

“Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing urban design and infrastructure planning by optimizing processes, strengthening decision-making mechanisms, and improving sustainability outcomes. It enables us to analyze vast data sets, simulate diverse scenarios, and develop more efficient and resilient urban environments.”

What Shah describes is an approach to designing future cities that seeks answers to questions directly impacting human life: “How can we design the smartest neighborhood to reduce traffic and pollution? How can a building stay cool during a heatwave without causing massive electricity bills?” Artificial intelligence makes it possible to calculate thousands of possibilities and identify the optimal solution.

Of course, the real world is not like the sterile environment of computer simulations. Weather conditions, delays, the inherent chaos of human life—these factors rarely vanish from practical implementation.

“The greatest challenge in applying data-driven models to physical environments is the complexity and variability of real-world conditions,” says Shah. “It is critical that models accurately reflect these conditions and adapt to change.”

The way forward is to begin at the most fundamental level: before turning to artificial intelligence, ensure that the information used in the learning process is reliable and robust. After all, the core idea of architecture must remain the creation of “living spaces” for people, not the reduction of the architectural process to mere technical operations.

For now, the functionality of AI in optimization efforts, necessary ground research, and urban adaptation contexts cannot be denied. AI-powered systems undoubtedly bring great convenience to planning processes by offering faster and more efficient solutions. Yet behind this impressive functionality lies a risk that must not be overlooked: homogenization.

Of course, the effectiveness of current manual methods can be debated. Yet when designing architectural plans, we must remember that every building constructed in time and space should revive the generation that inhabits it. This truth must guide our planning.

The functionality of AI in today’s urbanization processes—its role in optimization, ground research, and urban adaptation—is undeniable. Yet the risk of homogenization, hidden behind this efficient process, must not be ignored.

It is evident that traditional manual planning methods have shortcomings. But with the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence, the risk increases that everything will become standardized, and local textures and cultural uniqueness will disappear. When we consider that a building is not merely a structure but a living space that nourishes its inhabitants, inspires them, and instills a sense of belonging, then every construction across time and geography must reflect the spirit of its era and region.

In this context, while benefiting from the advantages offered by artificial intelligence, it is of great importance not to neglect the human-centered approach and the artistic dimension of architecture. AI must serve as a tool to support architects and urban planners, but final decisions must always be shaped by human creativity, intuition, and the capacity to understand social needs. Otherwise, our future cities risk becoming monotonous spaces filled with functional yet soulless, identical structures.