Techin' Geek

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a 6,500 word essay this week declaring that “The Future is for Everyone” and painting an optimistic picture of a future powered by AI, where “everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about.”

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Rebecca Bellan, and I discussed why not everyone is buying Zuckerberg’s vision — including our colleague Russell Brandom, who wrote that the manifesto is “exactly why people don’t like AI.”

Comparing Zuckerberg to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei (who spent the weekend pushing back against the idea that he’s an AI doomer), Rebecca said the Meta CEO seems to be positioning himself “almost like an anti-Dario.” The problem, however, is Zuckerberg and Meta’s history.

“You look back to the social media days, [Zuckerberg] was saying that he wants to make sure that everyone has an outlet for talking to their friends and having a social network,” Rebecca said. “And what do we have instead? We have ragebaiting and advertisements, and not connection.”

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Rebecca Bellan: Cynically, I think that this is an attempt for Meta to win in a different way. They’re not winning in the frontier, closed-model space. They’re not necessarily even winning in the open space. But when it comes to personal empowerment, as Mark Zuckerberg talks about in his letter, “The Future Is for Everyone,” that’s where he’s trying to win. He’s trying to provide the models that people will use for their own personal AI on their own personal devices.

I think last year, when he published a [similar] “Futures for Everyone” letter, [the promise] was that a lot of that AI would go onto the glasses, the wearables, but it’s not really clear what the final hardware form factor for this would be, and I guess he’s like leaving it up to the individual to choose. 

So his idea is that you’re using [Meta’s new AI model] Glimmer for managing your schedule, drafting messages, organizing files, it’s always on, it can operate anytime, anywhere, with or without an internet connection.

But then there is still Muse Spark, so that maintains a way for them to have some level of control over, still, its most capable models, and provide a revenue outlet for people who want to scale their compute, and people who want to like do larger projects, or companies that might want to do larger projects.

Anthony Ha: I imagine the part of the context here is also — Meta has made some very serious investments in AI, last year there [were] also all these stories about how much money they were trying to pay for AI scientists, but in terms of who we think of as the leading companies, the frontier labs, Meta doesn’t tend to come up in the conversation.

Another way it doesn’t come up in the conversation is in, you know, what are the popular consumer AI chatbots? Certainly, people are interacting with Meta AI tools in Instagram, in Facebook, but it’s not a company that you think of when, “I’m going to go use my personal assistant.” Meta isn’t that yet, and so it feels, to a certain extent, this is an attempt to reposition them and try to claim space that they really haven’t been that successful at before. Is that fair?

Rebecca: I think that is really fair to say. And I would take it with a grain of salt because Mark Zuckerberg loves to put out a vision of what his companies will do for people and how they will empower people. And so far, what that looks like for Meta — I mean, of course, Llama is great; it’s a great tool and open source, but I think that on a consumer level, how are people using Meta AI? Well, there’s like a lot of creepy-ass chatbots.

My TLDR is: I think that [Zuckerberg’s] letter and his idea of personal empowerment is putting a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths because it’s him who’s saying it. Russell Brandom, our AI editor, wrote about this this week. You look back to the social media days, he was saying that he wants to make sure that everyone has an outlet for talking to their friends and having a social network. And what do we have instead? We have ragebaiting and advertisements, and not connection.

Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, I think that the manifesto didn’t strike the right note for a lot of people. And to Russell’s point, which he makes in this column, is it’s what’s making people hate AI or hate on AI —  because, to your point, it is coming from Zuckerberg, and I do think also it feels very Pollyannish in a way. He’s put these thoughts out there in the past, and it really doesn’t provide what I think is a more realistic picture, but instead casts AI as this great tool for humanity. That might be the case, but there will also be extreme costs to that, and I think that’s why the negative reaction to it has been so widespread.

Rebecca: It feels like he’s positioning himself as almost like an anti-Dario. I don’t know. There’s a lot of talk among the frontier labs: “We’re pacing the frontier, pulling back, focus on safety. We need to slow down development.” They’re not doing any of that, of course, but they’re talking about it, and because of all these recent cybersecurity incidents that we’ve had.

Whereas Mark Zuckerberg, on the other hand, is like, “No, no, we do not slow down. We cannot afford to give an inch to China, and slowing down would only hurt the individual, who can be empowered by this technology.” 

But I mean, I was like, “Oh, maybe I’ll try to download Muse Glimmer and see what I can do with it.” Can I download it to my MacBook? No. You need specific hardware. I forget what the hardware is — it’s not actually that accessible to the average person.

Kirsten: It’s not for everyone. Not yet. 

Anthony: The one positive thing I will say for this very long manifesto — 6,500 words, longer than almost anything that’s been published on TechCrunch — is that there is one sentence where he says, “If you are an AI doomer and you believe that that’s the future that AI is going to bring, why are you building this stuff?”

Which I think is fair.  Although my big takeaway from that is not that the AI future is great, but it makes you wonder about people who are making these predictions and then pushing ahead anyway. 

I also wanted to talk a little bit about Russell’s point, which I think is totally a fair one, about how part of it is the messenger. For a variety of reasons, I think that people are suspicious of Mark Zuckerberg, of Meta, arguably that could become amplified over the next few months as this new Facebook movie is coming out.

But it’s also about the future that is being promised by these AI companies, and often why we see these viral pile-ons whenever Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg or somebody is making a prediction about this AI future and people essentially say, “Who wants this?” One of the more famous recent examples was Sam Altman talking about the idea of like, “You could use ChatGPT to make podcasts about your kids’ interests to listen to while driving to school,” And of course everyone is like, “Why don’t you just talk to your kid?” 

Part of the manifesto was — half of it was just stuff where it is just, “It’s going to unleash all this creativity and invention,” and it’s so abstract. If you’re skeptical about AI, none of that is going to convince you, because it seems unreal. And then the stuff that is more concrete, about these personal coaches and assistants, there’s some aspects that appeal, but a lot of [them] that don’t.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently pushed back against the idea that he’s been painting an overly pessimistic picture of artificial intelligence and how it might shape the future.

Amodei’s comments came in response to investor Gavin Baker, who argued — both on the All-In podcast and on X — that Amodei’s warnings about the dangers of AI have helped to fuel a backlash in the United States, particularly against data centers. 

Claiming that Amodei has “lost the argument” when it comes to AI regulation (Anthropic has advocated for some regulations, including a California bill that imposes transparency requirements on large AI companies), and given that “he is about to be the CEO of one of the most important companies in the world,” Baker wrote, “I respectfully think he should make an effort to be a more positive advocate for his own industry.”

Baker is far from the only one arguing that AI skepticism and even government crackdowns stem in part from simply taking the dire warnings of some AI executives seriously. But in his response, Amodei disagreed with the idea that his “messaging has been disproportionately negative.” Instead, he said that his writing has been “about equally balanced between risks and benefits,” and that he wrote his essay “Machines of Loving Grace” because he “didn’t feel the AI industry was painting an inspiring enough picture of how the technology could radically transform the world for the better.”

Nonetheless, Amodei acknowledged that “the public has a negative view of AI” and he agreed that “this is a big problem.” Where he disagreed was with the idea that this is “primarily caused” by Amodei “or any other AI leader warning about AI’s risks.”

“I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust,” Amodei said. “I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over.”

Indeed, “trust” is a word that often comes up in debates about the AI industry, especially around OpenAI CEO (and Amodei’s rival) Sam Altman. In Amodei’s telling, however, this is a crisis that’s been decades in the making, with the AI backlash “just the latest iteration of it.”

“I think by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world,” Amodei said. “That is totally on us, and I think it’s the criticism you should be making, instead of all this stuff about messaging and marketing.” (Naturally, he also said Anthropic is “doing our best to fix this.”)

As for regulation, Amodei argued that Baker was painting “a false choice” between distributing AI widely without regulation, or concentrating the technology in the hands of a few companies through regulation.

“I know that there’s a sort of Silicon Valley shorthand where regulation = regulatory capture = concentration of power, but I’ve always found this to be an overly simplified picture of the world,” Amodei said. “Many people outside this bubble think of regulation as something that constrains corporate power and benefits ordinary people.”

Amodei added that he doesn’t “necessarily agree with that perspective either,” but he said that’s “why Anthropic has always made its policy proposals very carefully.”

“We try very hard to make proposals that disadvantage (slow down) frontier AI companies while *advantaging* smaller competitors,” he said.

2/2 Second, on the messaging around AI.  I do not agree that my messaging has been disproportionately negative.  In fact it has been about equally balanced between risks and benefits: I’ve written one major essay about each, and even in interviews where I discuss the risks, I…

— Dario Amodei (@DarioAmodei) August 15, 2026

Anthropic published a blog post Friday seeking to answer some basic questions about how it will watermark the text generated by its chatbot Claude. Such as: How will the watermarking actually work? Can it be hidden with editing? And how does this affect code?

Claude users have been debating the move since the company revealed earlier this week that it would be doing this watermarking to comply with the EU AI Act’s Transparency Code, which requires AI companies to use systems that make it possible to identify AI-generated content.

On Reddit, for example, one poster characterized this as a conspiracy against innocent Claude users, while another claimed, “The only reason you wouldn’t want this is to lie to people.” And Business Insider reports that “dozens” of users on X have claimed to cancel their Claude subscriptions as a result.

Anthropic’s new post starts with a general overview of the watermarking concept, explaining that when making “low-stakes choices” — like choosing between the words “overcast” and “grey” to describe the weather — Claude can create a pattern in its responses that is “undetectable to the reader, but is detectable to anyone who has a key that encodes it.”

“Watermarking does not impact the quality of Claude’s output,” the company said. “To a reader, a watermarked response is indistinguishable from an unwatermarked one.”

More specifically, Anthropic said it will be using the SynthID-Text approach that the Google DeepMind team outlined in 2024, and that it plans to release a watermark detection API. It also noted that watermarking is distinct from the AI detection approaches offered by companies like Pangram that look for “tells” in the writing (like the construction “his isn’t [X], it’s [Y]”) to reveal AI usage: “Picking up on these patterns is fundamentally different from checking for a watermark.”

Could someone just rewrite the text to hide the watermark? Anthropic said it’s possible, but “light editing probably won’t remove the watermark completely,” while “a complete rewrite where every word is replaced will.”

“In the latter case, of course, it’s arguable whether the text can any longer be described as AI-generated,” the company said.

As for whether the watermark will be detectable in text that was only proofread or edited by Claude, Anthropic said that will depend on “the length of the text and how heavily Claude has edited it.” If it’s only been lightly edited, “nearly all the words” will have been written by the human author and “there’s very little (if anything) for the watermark to attach to.”

Code, meanwhile, should have less of a watermark than other text, because the model will need to create working code and won’t have the freedom to choose between a variety of equally valid options. 

“Having said that, in areas where there is an arbitrary choice between particular words or terms within the code, the watermark can be used, such as comments within code,” Anthropic said. “But by definition, it will have a negligible effect on the actual code produced.”

Anthropic also said that Claude won’t be the only AI chatbot to generate watermarked text, as “other major model developers have signed the same Code of Practice and will be implementing their own watermarks.”

Just like any other online service, hackers can target and break into your accounts on popular AI platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity. 

TechCrunch has created a comprehensive guide to help you protect yourself if you suspect someone has broken into your account on one of the internet’s most popular platforms, social networks, or messaging apps. Now, we’re here to show you how to check whether your accounts on AI platforms have been hacked.

As usual, we recommend using unique passwords stored in a password manager, and turning on multi-factor authentication (MFA), so that even if someone steals your password, they won’t be able to log in without that second piece of information. 

ChatGPT and Perplexity offer MFA. Claude doesn’t, because instead of asking for a password, Anthropic’s AI chatbot sends a login link to your email address.

All three of these AI platforms offer similar ways to check if there’s a suspicious device logged into your account. Here’s exactly how each platform works.  

ChatGPT

To find out if someone has broken into your ChatGPT account, open it on your computer’s browser, click on your username in the bottom left corner, go to “Settings,” then “Security and Login,” and finally click on “Active Sessions.” 

You will see where you are logged into your ChatGPT account. If you see any device you don’t recognize, you can log out of that single device. You can also click on “Log out all.”

At this point, if you want to change your password, you need to log out of your account. 

Then, on ChatGPT’s website, click “Log in” located in the bottom-left corner, enter your email address, click on “Forgot password,” and then “Continue.”  

ChatGPT will then send you an email containing a six-digit code. Enter the code on the ChatGPT login page, click “Continue,” and then enter a new password. 

You can also click “reset your password” in the email you received to see the official instructions on how to do that. 

Claude

For Claude, open it in your computer’s browser, click on your username in the bottom-left corner, then “Settings,” and click on “Account.” That’s where you will see your “Active sessions.” 

If you don’t recognize one of them, hover over it, click on the three vertical dots that appear on the right, and click “Log out” or “Terminate.”

If you want, you can click on “Log out of all devices.” 

At that point, you’ll be able to log back into your account using your email address. You will receive an email with a link to log in. Claude does not allow you to use passwords at all, so there’s no password to change.

Perplexity

In the case of Perplexity, the AI-powered search engine does not show you where you are logged in. 

So if you’re worried someone may have broken into your account, go to Perplexity in your browser and click your username in the bottom-left corner, then “All settings.” Finally, click on “Sign out of all sessions,” and then “Confirm.”

At that point, you can log back in by entering your email address. You will then receive an email with a unique six-digit code. Enter the code on the website to log in, or click on the “Sign in” button in the email to log in directly. 

Ceva Logistics, a major player in the global shipping and logistics sector, has experienced a cyber breach. Various companies depending on Ceva for their shipping needs report that their sensitive data was compromised in the attack.

The cyber breach has impacted at least eight distribution centers throughout Europe involved in the shipment of products across the region, as stated by the company to TechCrunch.

According to industry publication FreightWaves, the attack commenced on July 29, leading to delays in the shipment of numerous items housed in the affected facilities.

Ceva, headquartered in France, serves as a critical shipping and logistics provider for businesses globally, facilitating the distribution of goods from production sites to consumer residences. The firm reported $18.3 billion in revenue for 2025 and operates more than a thousand warehouses worldwide.

Recently, logistics and shipping firms have increasingly become targets for cybercriminals, given their access to and control over trucks and containers laden with merchandise, often diverting it to criminal enterprises.

The breach at Ceva also led to a significant data theft, impacting a vast array of personal details belonging to retail clients that Ceva uses for home delivery services. Numerous companies disclosed that hackers accessed their customers’ names, residential addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses stored within Ceva’s systems.

The Dutch e-commerce powerhouse Bol announced on its site that intruders accessed its warehousing partner, Ceva, and cautioned that their clients’ personal data may have been compromised. Bol anticipates delays and potential cancellations of certain customer orders due to the incident.

In a similar vein, De Bijenkorf, a Dutch luxury retailer, confirmed shipping delays as a result of the theft of its clients’ data, according to local news outlets. Additionally, football club Ajax, banking entity ING, and eyeglass manufacturer Ace & Tate indicated that their customers’ shipping details were also impacted. 

Valve, the video game industry titan, informed its customers on August 7 that data had been extracted from Ceva’s systems, notifying those who recently purchased its Steam hardware that their personal information was compromised in the breach. In a message to customers shared on Reddit, Valve indicated that Ceva retains their shipping and delivery data for 90 days post-order.

Valve representative Doug Lombardi did not reply to a request for comments regarding the incident. 

Ceva acknowledged the cyberattack in a statement to TechCrunch.

“On Aug. 1, CEVA Logistics informed affected clients that a cyber intrusion was disrupting part of its European contract logistics functions. Once the breach was detected, CEVA’s cybersecurity teams promptly initiated their security protocols and commenced a comprehensive investigation that is still ongoing,” as per the statement shared with TechCrunch. “The operational ramifications are confined to eight warehouses. No other CEVA systems globally were impacted, and all remaining operations proceed without issue.”

Ceva spokesperson Ryan Fisher declined to answer TechCrunch’s inquiries about the breach, including whether the company is aware of the extent of personal data taken or if there has been any communication from the attackers, such as a ransom request.

Ceva reported that some of its affected applications and services have been restored, and that it is collaborating with law enforcement. At the time of publication on Monday, Ceva’s website was not loading properly.

Investigative efforts by authorities in the Netherlands are underway regarding the incident. 

Mark Schenkel, a representative for the Dutch data protection authority, did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment on Monday concerning the situation.

Recent security findings indicate that marketing technology leader Klaviyo was, until recently, unintentionally disclosing the sign-up details of its new users, including their passwords, to external advertisers.

Sam Jadali, a security investigator and co-founder of the cybersecurity company Melurna, informed TechCrunch that the web form on Klaviyo’s registration page was incorrectly set up from at least February 2024 to November 2025, likely for an even longer period.

The startup’s investigations revealed that anyone registering with Klaviyo via the faulty form might have had their sign-up details shared with various third-party tech companies and advertisers whose tracking mechanisms are also integrated into the company’s website.

This sign-up information contained the user’s email, password, as well as the organization’s name, website, and phone number. This data was disclosed to advertising and tech firms such as Facebook and Google; marketing leader HubSpot; Microsoft and its subsidiary LinkedIn; social media platform X, among others.

The startup disclosed its results to TechCrunch prior to its presentation at the Def Con security conference in Las Vegas.

Klaviyo acknowledged to TechCrunch that it rectified the website flaw, yet uncertainties remain regarding the incident, including the total number of individuals impacted by the data exposure throughout the years. The Boston-based marketing leader permits its 205,000 paid clients to execute advertising campaigns through email, SMS, and various other means. Klaviyo’s site claims it oversees over seven billion customer profiles.

The flaw highlights the data vulnerabilities that third-party trackers can inflict on website users when defensive measures, like ad-blockers, are not employed. Klaviyo joins the list of companies in recent times that have unintentionally exposed data to external entities.

Website trackers, referred to as “pixels,” enable website and app proprietors to gather information concerning their visitors and users, commonly for understanding how their applications are utilized and for detecting issues. These trackers can be misconfigured to also disclose personal information entered on any webpage where they are present. 

In recent years, security breaches arising from improperly configured pixel trackers have led to businesses submitting data breach notifications and regulators initiating enforcement measures.

When contacted by TechCrunch, Klaviyo representative Danielle Zanatta confirmed the flaw was linked to an “application configuration issue.” Zanatta mentioned that the count of known affected individuals was fewer than 200, “based on our readily available active logs.” Klaviyo refrained from commenting on how far back it retains logs or how long the flaw was present on its website.

Klaviyo stated it informed the known affected individuals, but did not provide a copy of the communication that the company supposedly sent to impacted customers when requested by TechCrunch. 

It remains uncertain why the company did not disclose the incident publicly.