Meta's Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang told tech journalist Cleo Abram on October 7 that AI leaders are all very smart, but personal grudges are shaping how this technology is developed. His exact words were that everyone must put aside their differences and their respective histories.

The interview was featured on Abram's YouTube show "HUGE* Conversations," titled "The Biggest Launch Since ChatGPT," where she asked him which side of the safety debate he stands on as one of the responsible parties. Abram noted that his response was unexpected. The interview also discussed Meta's agent product Muse: what it can do, when it can be trusted, and how to determine if it is on the right track.

Wang summarized the competitive logic as: "I am responsible, those people are not, so I cannot slow down." He stated that if you change the subject to any lab, any country, or any competitor of the week, the result is the same; everyone still claims to be the responsible party. When discussing China, he mentioned that he has changed his mind and that outsiders have exaggerated the portrayal of the other side as a monster.

He described Muse as an architecture, not just a slogan. Each agent runs in an independent secure virtual machine, and the data shared only exists there; when filling out forms or making calls externally, another sentinel agent checks and intercepts sensitive information like credit card numbers and social security numbers. Users must approve access to new websites or data sharing. A more secure virtual machine is planned, aiming to approach the guarantees of WhatsApp, though it may come at the cost of slower performance. Conversations and data within the virtual machine are not sent to Meta's advertising system.

The other side of the safety debate was also addressed in this episode. Wang stated that no one knows exactly how to manage systems that are much smarter than humans; supervision is possible when humans and models are similarly intelligent, but it becomes incomprehensible when the gap is too wide. He remains optimistic, believing that the process will be bumpy but progress is visible. The program did not provide a ceasefire list between labs.

This is a redistribution of discourse power, not new financing. The sellers are lab heads who harvest safety debates into personal grudges, while the buyers are regulators and clients deciding whether to slow down or continue accelerating. The beneficiaries are platforms that can turn trust into virtual machines, sentinels, and approval switches, while those under pressure are labs that still defend acceleration by saying "the other side is irresponsible, so I cannot stop." Meta is selling an auditable wall, not a joint statement.

Source: Public Information