Colossus Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Stern Says It's Hard to Imagine Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk Stepping Down
Colossus Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Stern stated on David Senra's show that it is hard to imagine Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk retiring to spend their lives on a yacht. Both will remain as CEOs until the end. This is his judgment after completing a lengthy piece on Zuckerberg, not an official company announcement.
Stern referred to Zuckerberg as one of the founding contemporaries still on the front lines. Larry Page and Sergey Brin stepped back from daily management, Jeff Bezos handed over control, Bill Gates left Microsoft earlier, and Steve Jobs passed away. The contrast cited in the show is that others will step down, sell, or be overthrown, but he has not stopped. Zuckerberg's own words were quoted as "I will not stop."
In earlier years, he would lead everyone in chanting "Domination" at the end of meetings. Early president Sean Parker stopped him, arguing that this phrase might be written into future antitrust cases. A researcher who previously worked at Meta and has since moved to a competing lab told Stern that he is like a Terminator, but not a jerk. The advantage is an eternal dissatisfaction and unhappiness, just continuously moving forward. Senra reiterated this in the show.
Stern also mentioned that Zuckerberg might be the most competitive person in what he does, ideologically more coherent and less chaotic than many figures in artificial intelligence. The voting rights structure was described in the show as majority control, and it is practically impossible to remove him. Some speculate that politicians will step down and die, but he may still be running this empire fifty years from now. This is commentary, not a term contract.
Meta's capital expenditure this year was said to exceed the military spending of all countries except the U.S., China, and Russia. The argument regarding artificial intelligence is not about model-first, but distribution: WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger cover about half of the world's population, plus the data centers and government contracts already secured, eliminating the need for repeated external financing for the same thing.
This is about keeping control in the hands of the founders, not about launching new products. The buyer is Meta, which continues to invest capital into models and data centers, while the seller is contemporaries who have already handed over or sold their stakes. The event is driven by the lengthy piece and podcast framing "not stopping" as a structure. Funding does not move because of these 42 seconds, but voting rights and capital expenditures keep exit options off the table. The beneficiary is the controlling shareholder who can continue to increase investment without consulting the board, while those under pressure must seek external financing and explain every round of competitors.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Mark Zuckerberg has been with Facebook since 2004, acquired Instagram in 2012, and WhatsApp in 2014, maintaining control over voting rights. Among his contemporaries, Page and Brin stepped back from daily management, Bezos handed over Amazon's CEO role to Andy Jassy, and Gates left Microsoft. Stern's lengthy piece summarizes this difference in one sentence: others will step down, sell, or be overthrown, but he has not. The chant of "Domination" at the end of meetings was halted by Parker due to antitrust concerns, not because Zuckerberg wanted to stop.
The capital path is internal cash plus significant capital expenditures, not relying on rounds of external approvals. The show stated that this year's expenditures exceed military spending of countries outside the U.S., China, and Russia. On the model side, Llama's open weights are exchanged for developers, while on the distribution side, four applications cover about half the population. The massive expenditures during the metaverse phase did not lead him to hand over control, and the data centers in the AI phase continue to be approved by the same voting rights. Wealth in this structure is a result of increased investment, not a condition for exit.
The analogy is that Rockefeller remained in oil even after Standard Oil was broken up, rather than a founder selling the company to a conglomerate and then buying a yacht. Zuckerberg is in an extended control phase: products have transitioned from social media to headsets to models, with no change in control. Musk is placed in the same category by Stern because he also does not see a proactive handover, not because their businesses are the same.
Structurally, this represents capital concentration. Majority voting prevents the board from removing the CEO through ordinary procedures. The mechanism of eternal dissatisfaction is framed as an operational advantage, rather than a character story. Competitors need financing and explanations, while he continues to increase investment using existing distribution and capital expenditures. Exit options have not been written into the control structure from day one.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- Voting rights remain; exit is not an option.
- When contemporaries hand over control, those in control continue to invest.
- Eternal dissatisfaction is not a character trait, but capital expenditures that do not require consultation.