On July 28, 2026, Mark Zuckerberg published a piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing that superintelligence should belong to everyone. His position is that concentrating that much capability inside a few institutions would be worse for safety than spreading it, and that the values which carried us this far, liberty and open inquiry and free enterprise, are the ones to build on.
I have written 113+ books under my own name and ghostwritten 54+ more for other people. So when the CEO of Meta publishes a philosophy of who should be able to make things, I read it as someone whose entire trade is making one specific kind of thing for other people.
Most of the argument is reasonable. One part is a thought experiment about lawyers, and that is the part worth taking apart, because it works exactly as he says in the setting he chose and stops working the moment you move it.
What did Zuckerberg argue in the Wall Street Journal?
His claim comes in three parts. Putting capability in individual hands is where prosperity comes from. Invention, and not automation, is what superintelligence is for. And balance of power, spread widely, is a better foundation for safety than a few well-intentioned institutions holding everything.
He makes a point about jobs that most coverage skipped. There is a balance, he writes, between using AI to automate and using it to help people expand what they can do. If it tips toward automation, the effect on work may be negative. Distribute the capability and he expects more businesses, most of them small.
Then comes the thought experiment. Imagine one person has a superintelligent lawyer. He wins in court whether or not he should, and society is worse for it. Now imagine everyone has one. Justice gets carried out more fairly and more efficiently than it does today.
Where the lawyer argument holds
It works because a courtroom has three features that most situations lack.
The dispute is adversarial and bounded. Two sides, one question, one outcome. There is a decision maker who is obliged to reach a verdict, and cannot decline on the grounds that both arguments were tedious. And the merits exist independently of how well they are argued. Somebody either signed the contract or did not.
Put those together and Zuckerberg’s conclusion follows. If skill in argument is unevenly distributed, the better argued case wins regardless of the facts. Distribute the skill and the advantage cancels out, leaving the facts to decide. He is describing the removal of an asymmetry, and in a system with a compulsory judge, removing that asymmetry genuinely does move outcomes toward the merits.
The same argument on a bookshelf
Now run it again with books.
One person has a superintelligent ghostwriter. Their book is competent, well structured, correctly paced, free of the errors that mark an amateur manuscript. Against a field of ordinary books, it stands out. Zuckerberg’s first case, exactly as described, and I agree with him that this is a bad outcome.
So distribute it. Everyone has one. Every person who wants to write a book can produce a competent one.
What follows is not a fairer bookshelf. Competence stops functioning as a signal, because a signal only works when it is scarce. The reader who used to be able to tell a serious book from an unserious one in a page can no longer do it, since the unserious book now has the same clean prose and the same tidy structure. The asymmetry has gone, and nothing has replaced it.
The difference is the judge. A courtroom has one and they must rule. A bookshelf does not. A reader is under no obligation to finish anything or reach a verdict. They can put the book down and never think about it again, and they will, because there are more books than hours.
Why does an attention market behave differently from a courtroom?
Because the constraint sits in a different place.
In court the constraint is capability. One question to settle, somebody obliged to settle it, and the side with the better lawyer holding an unearned edge. Fix capability and you fix the distortion.
On a bookshelf the constraint is attention. The question is not which of these two books is better, it is whether this book is worth an evening when a hundred thousand others were published this year. Doubling the number of competent books does not double the hours anyone has to read them. It divides the same attention across a larger field.
Zuckerberg’s own framing points at this without following it through. Invention and not automation, he writes, and the number of questions you can ask in a day is limited while the number of things superintelligence can invent is unlimited. That is right, and it means the bottleneck moves. When production is unlimited and consumption is not, whatever governs consumption becomes the scarce thing.
For books, that is trust. Why should a reader believe this particular person has something worth their evening? Prose quality used to serve as a rough proxy, and it worked because writing well was hard. It no longer is.
Does this mean AI makes writing a book pointless?
No, and I want to be careful here because the doom version of this argument is as wrong as the utopian one.
What has become cheap is the production of competent text. What has not changed at all is the value of having lived something and being able to say what it meant. A model can write clean sentences about a subject it has no relationship with, and any writer who tells you otherwise has not used one seriously. It cannot tell you what it was like to run a company through a period when payroll was not certain, because it was not there.
The people who should worry are the ones whose offer was fluency. If what you were selling was the ability to produce readable prose on a topic, that skill has been commoditised and the pricing will follow.
The people who should not worry are the ones whose offer was the material itself. A memoir works because of what happened, not because of the sentence construction. A business book works because somebody made decisions under real pressure and can explain why. The question of whether a story is worth telling was never a question about writing ability, and distributing writing ability does not touch it.
The fork between automation and assistance
Zuckerberg puts the whole employment question on this fork, and for writing the fork is unusually visible.
Automation is asking a model to produce the chapter. Assistance is asking it to find the three studies you half remember, check whether a date is right, or tell you which of two structures a reader would follow more easily. The first replaces the judgment you were being paid for. The second removes the drudgery around it.
I hold that line in my own work and it is easy to check. The tools help me find things, organise things, and test things. They do not produce the prose that goes in the book. That is not a moral position about machines, it is a practical one about what a client is paying for. When somebody hires a specific person’s judgment applied to their story, a chapter written by a model is not that, and the fact that it reads well is beside the point.
What gets scarce when everyone can write well
Four things, and none of them are craft.
Direct experience is the first. The specific texture of a decision made with incomplete information and real consequences. No amount of capability generates that, because it is not a capability at all, it is a history.
Nerve is the second. Most books are worse than the conversation that produced them, because the writer sanded off the part that was interesting. The habit of waiting until you know enough is usually the polite name for not wanting to commit to a position.
Restraint is the third, and unlimited production makes it harder. When generating another chapter costs nothing, the discipline to cut one becomes the scarce skill.
Trust is the fourth. If competence no longer distinguishes anything, readers fall back on whoever they already believe. That advantage accrues over years and cannot be generated on demand, which is exactly why it will matter more.
What to do if you are planning a book
Write the one only you can write. That advice was always true and always a little glib. It is now operationally specific, because everything else has been automated and this has not.
In practice that means favouring the material a model has no access to. What you saw, what you decided, what it cost, who was in the room. A book built on public information about your industry is one a model can approximate. A book built on the eleven years you spent inside it is not.
It also means the interview record becomes the asset. When I work with a client, every sentence traces back to a conversation on a particular date, and I can tell them which one. That used to be a habit. After a court settled a billion and a half dollars over where text came from, it is a document with a use.
And it means accepting that the shelf got louder. More books will be published, most will be competent, and almost none will be memorable. That is a harder market for the average book and no harder at all for a good one, because the thing that made a book good was never in the sentences.
Is widely distributed superintelligence good for writers?
Probably, on balance, and not for the reason the essay gives.
Zuckerberg is right that concentration is the greater risk. A world where three companies decide which stories get told is worse than a noisy one, and publishing already ran that experiment with gatekeepers for a century. The noise is a real cost and it is a smaller cost than the alternative.
But the benefit is not that everyone can now write a book. It is that the people who genuinely have something to say and never had the craft to shape it now can, and the barrier that kept them out was always arbitrary. Craft was a filter that selected for having learned to write, which correlates weakly with having something worth writing about.
Remove that filter and more of the right books get made, along with a great many of the wrong ones. Net positive, and messy.
Which brings the lawyer back. Zuckerberg is correct that everyone having one improves justice, because a judge is compelled to choose and the merits decide once the skill gap closes. On a bookshelf nobody is compelled to choose anything. The reader simply leaves, and the only defence against that has ever been having something to say that they cannot get anywhere else.
If you are weighing up a book of your own, the practical next step has not changed and has become more urgent. Work out what you know that nobody else does, and build the thing around that instead of around the writing. The AI and Writing Hub collects the pieces on tools, disclosure, and where the line sits, and the ghostwriting service page explains how the interview record works on a real project. The bookshelf is getting louder either way. The only thing that ever cut through it was a person who had been somewhere and would say what they found.
The Guides That Get Your Book Written, Published, and Sold
Four short, practical guides on writing, publishing, and selling your book, plus the occasional note when there's something worth your time. No fluff, no daily inbox clutter. Drop your email and they're yours.
We use MailerLite to manage our list and send these emails. Your address is used only to send you what you signed up for. We will not sell it, share it, or use it for anything else, and you can unsubscribe anytime.