At this point, it’s becoming easier to say which AI startups Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t looked at acquiring.
In addition to Ilya Sutskever’s Safe Superintelligence (SSI), sources tell me the Meta CEO recently discussed buying ex-OpenAI CTO Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab and Perplexity, the AI-native Google rival. None of these talks progressed to the formal offer stage for various reasons, including disagreements over deal prices and strategy, but together they illustrate how aggressively Zuckerberg has been canvassing the industry to reboot his AI efforts.
Now, details about the team Zuckerberg is assembling are starting to come into view: SSI co-founder and CEO Daniel Gross, along with ex-Github CEO Nat Friedman, are poised to co-lead the Meta AI assistant. Both men will report to Alexandr Wang, the former Scale CEO Zuckerberg just paid over $14 billion to quickly hire. Wang told his Scale team goodbye last Friday and was in the Meta office on Monday. This week, he has been meeting with top Meta leaders (more on that below) and continuing to recruit for the new AI team Zuckerberg has tasked him with building. I expect the team to be unveiled as soon as next week.
Rather than join Meta, Sutskever, Murati, and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas have all gone on to raise more money at higher valuations. Sutskever, a titan of the AI research community who co-founded OpenAI, recently raised a couple of billion dollars for SSI. Both Meta and Google are investors in his company, I’m told. Murati also just raised a couple of billion dollars. Neither she nor Sutskever is close to releasing a product. Srinivas, meanwhile, is in the process of raising around $500 million for Perplexity.
Spokespeople for all the companies involved either declined to comment or didn’t respond in time for publication. The Information and CNBC first reported Zuckerberg’s talks with Safe Superintelligence, while Bloomberg first reported the Perplexity talks.
While Zuckerberg’s recruiting drive is motivated by the urgency he feels to fix Meta’s AI strategy, the situation also highlights the fierce competition for top AI talent these days. In my conversations this week, those on the inside of the industry aren’t surprised by Zuckerberg making nine-figure — or even, yes, 10-figure — compensation offers for the best AI talent. There are certain senior people at OpenAI, for example, who are already compensated in that ballpark, thanks to the company’s meteoric increase in valuation over the last few years.
Speaking of OpenAI, it’s clear that CEO Sam Altman is at least a bit rattled by Zuckerberg’s hiring spree. His decision to appear on his brother’s podcast this week and say that “none of our best people” are leaving for Meta was probably meant to convey a position of strength, but in reality, it looks like he is throwing his former colleagues under the bus. I was confused by Altman’s suggestion that Meta paying a lot upfront for talent won’t “set up a great culture.” After all, didn’t OpenAI just pay $6.5 billion to hire Jony Ive and his small hardware team?
“We think that glasses are the best form factor for AI”
When I joined a Zoom call with Alex Himel, Meta’s VP of wearables, this week, he had just gotten off a call with Zuckerberg’s new AI chief, Alexandr Wang.
“There’s an increasing number of Alexes that I talk to on a regular basis,” Himel joked as we started our conversation about Meta’s new glasses release with Oakley. “I was just in my first meeting with him. There were like three people in a room with the camera real far away, and I was like, ‘Who is talking right now?’ And then I was like, ‘Oh, hey, it’s Alex.’”
The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity:
How did your meeting with Alex just now go?
The meeting was about how to make AI as awesome as it can be for glasses. Obviously, there are some unique use cases in the glasses that aren’t stuff you do on a phone. The thing we’re trying to figure out is how to balance it all, because AI can be everything to everyone or it could be amazing for more specific use cases.
We’re trying to figure out how to strike the right balance because there’s a ton of stuff in the underlying Llama models and that whole pipeline that we don’t care about on glasses. Then there’s stuff we really, really care about, like egocentric view and trying to feed video into the models to help with some of the really aspirational use cases that we wouldn’t build otherwise.
You are referring to this new lineup with Oakley as “AI glasses.” Is that the new branding for this category? They are AI glasses, not smart glasses?
We refer to the category as AI glasses. You saw Orion. You used it for longer than anyone else in the demo, which I commend you for. We used to think that’s what you needed to hit scale for this new category. You needed the big field of view and display to overlay virtual content. Our opinion of that has definitely changed. We think we can hit scale faster, and AI is the reason we think that’s possible.
Right now, the top two use cases for the glasses are audio — phone calls, music, podcasts — and taking photos and videos. We look at participation rates of our active users, and those have been one and two since launch. Audio is one. A very close second is photos and videos.
AI has been number three from the start. As we’ve been launching more markets — we’re now in 18 — and we’ve been adding more features, AI is creeping up. Our biggest investment by a mile on the software side is AI functionality, because we think that glasses are the best form factor for AI. They are something you’re already wearing all the time. They can see what you see. They can hear what you hear. They’re super accessible.
Is your goal to have AI supersede audio and photo to be the most used feature for glasses, or is that not how you think about it?
From a math standpoint, at best, you could tie. We do want AI to be something that’s increasingly used by more people more frequently. We think there’s definitely room for the audio to get better. There’s definitely room for image quality to get better. The AI stuff has much more headroom.
How much of the AI is onboard the glasses versus the cloud? I imagine you have lots of physical constraints with this kind of device.
We’ve now got one billion-parameter models that can run on the frame. So, increasingly, there’s stuff there. Then we have stuff running on the phone.
If you were watching WWDC, Apple made a couple of announcements that we haven’t had a chance to test yet, but we’re excited about. One is the Wi-Fi Aware APIs. We should be able to transfer photos and videos without having people tap that annoying dialogue box every time. That’d be great. The second one was processor background access, which should allow us to do image processing when you transfer the media over. Syncing would work just like it does on Android.
Do you think the market for these new Oakley glasses will be as big as the Ray-Bans? Or is it more niche because they are more outdoors and athlete-focused?
We work with EssilorLuxottica, which is a great partner. Ray-Ban is their largest brand. Within that, the most popular style is Wayfair. When we launched the original Ray-Ban Meta glasses, we went with the most popular style for the most popular brand.
Their second biggest brand is Oakley. A lot of people wear them. The Holbrook is really popular. The HSTN, which is what we’re launching, is a really popular analog frame. We increasingly see people using the Ray-Ban Meta glasses for active use cases. This is our first step into the performance category. There’s more to come.
What’s your reaction to Google’s announcements at I/O for their XR glasses platform and eyewear partnerships?
We’ve been working with EssilorLuxottica for like five years now. That’s a long time for a partnership. It takes a while to get really in sync. I feel very good about the state of our partnership. We’re able to work quickly. The Oakley Meta glasses are the fastest program we’ve had by quite a bit. It took less than nine months.
I thought the demos they [Google] did were pretty good. I thought some of those were pretty compelling. They didn’t announce a product, so I can’t react specifically to what they’re doing. It’s flattering that people see the traction we’re getting and want to jump in as well.
On the AR glasses front, what have you been learning from Orion now that you’ve been showing it to the outside world?
We’ve been going full speed on that. We’ve actually hit some pretty good internal milestones for the next version of it, which is the one we plan to sell. The biggest learning from using them is that we feel increasingly good about the input and interaction model with eye tracking and the neural band. I wore mine during March Madness in the office. I was literally watching the games. Picture yourself sitting at a table with a virtual TV just above people’s heads. It was amazing.
- TikTok gets to keep operating illegally. As expected, President Trump extended his enforcement deadline for the law that has banned a China-owned TikTok in the US. It’s essential to understand what is really happening here: Trump is instructing his Attorney General not to enforce earth-shattering fines on Apple, Google, and every other American company that helps operate TikTok. The idea that he wouldn’t use this immense leverage to extract whatever he wants from these companies is naive, and this whole process makes a mockery of everyone involved, not to mention the US legal system.
- Amazon will hire fewer people because of AI. When you make an employee memo a press release, you’re trying to tell the whole world what’s coming. In this case, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy wants to make clear that he’s going to fully embrace AI to cut costs. Roughly 30 percent of Amazon’s code is already written by AI, and I’m sure Jassy is looking at human-intensive areas, such as sales and customer service, to further automate.
If you haven’t already, don’t forget to subscribe to The Verge, which includes unlimited access to Command Line and all of our reporting.
As always, I welcome your feedback, especially if you’ve also turned down Zuck. You can respond here or ping me securely on Signal.
Source link
#Meta #held #talks #buy #Thinking #Machines #Perplexity #Safe #Superintelligence
![Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine](https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-13-at-8.02.01 PM.jpg "Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine")
![Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine](https://i0.wp.com/gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-13-at-8.02.01 PM.jpg?ssl=1 "Your Doctor Is Most Likely Consulting This Free AI Chatbot, Report Says
How would you like it if, when stumped or just in need of some help with an unfamiliar situation, your doctor consulted a free, ad-supported AI chatbot? That’s not actually a hypothetical. They probably are doing that, a new report from NBC News says. It’s called OpenEvidence, and NBC says it was “used by about 65% of U.S. doctors across almost 27 million clinical encounters in April alone.” An earlier Bloomberg report on OpenEvidence from seven months ago said it had signed up 50% of American doctors at the time—so reported growth is rapid.
The OpenEvidence homepage trumpets the bot as “America’s Official Medical Knowledge Platform,” and says healthcare professionals qualify for unlimited free use, but non-doctors can try it for free without creating accounts. It gives long, detailed answers with extensive citations that superficially look—to me, a non-doctor—trustworthy and credible. NBC interviewed doctors for its story, and apparently pressed them on how often they actually click those links to the sources of information, and “most said they only do so when they get an unexpected result,” NBC’s report says.
While it’s free, OpenEvidence is not a charity. It’s a Miami-headquartered tech unicorn with a billionaire founder named David Nadler, and as of January it boasted a billion valuation. NBC says it’s backed by some of the all stars of Sand Hill Road: Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with Google Ventures, Thrive Capital, and Nvidia.
And its revenue comes from ads (for now), which NBC says are often for “pharmaceutical and medical device companies.” I’m not capable of stress testing such a piece of software, but I kicked the tires slightly by asking Claude to generate doctor’s notes that are very bad and irresponsible (I said it was just a movie prop). ©OpenEvidence When I told OpenEvidence those were my notes and asked it to make sure they were good, thankfully, it confirmed that they were bad, saying in part:
“This clinical documentation raises serious patient safety concerns. The presentation described contains multiple red flags for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that appear to have been insufficiently weighted, and the current management plan could result in significant harm.” So that’s somewhat comforting. On the other hand, according to NBC: “[…]some healthcare providers were quick to point out that OpenEvidence occasionally flubbed or exaggerated its answers, particularly on rare conditions or in ‘edge’ cases.” NBC’s report also clocked some worries within the medical community and elsewhere, in particular, a “lack of rigorous scientific studies on the tool’s patient impact,” and signs that OpenEvidence might be stunting the intellectual development of recent med school grads: “One midcareer doctor in Missouri, who requested anonymity given the limited number of providers in their medical field in the country, said he was already seeing the detrimental effects of OpenEvidence on students’ ability to sort signals from noise. ‘My worry is that when we introduce a new tool, any kind of tool that is doing part of your skills that you had trained up for a while beforehand, you start losing those skills pretty quickly” At a recent doctor’s appointment, my doctor asked my permission to use an AI tool on their phone (I don’t know if it was OpenEvidence). I didn’t know what to say other than yes. Do I want that for my doctor’s appointment? Not especially. But if my doctor has come to rely on a tool like this, then what am I supposed to do? Take away their crutch? #Doctor #Consulting #Free #Chatbot #ReportArtificial intelligence,doctors,Medicine")
Post Comment