Computer History Museum (MacRumors): Join us for a special CHM Live evening celebrating Apple’s first half-century, featuring speakers from across the eras of Apple history, including former Apple CEO John Sculley, Senior Employee Chris Espinosa, former Senior Vice President (SVP) of Hardware Engineering Jon Rubinstein (by video), and former Chief Software Technology Officer and SVP […]

Amanda Silberling (Hacker News, Slashdot): Meta acquired Moltbook, the Reddit-like “social network” where AI agents using OpenClaw can communicate with one another. The news was first reported by Axios and later confirmed to TechCrunch. Moltbook is joining Meta Superintelligence Labs, a Meta spokesperson told us. Moltbook creators Matt Schlicht and Ben Parr will join the […]

Eli Tan, reporting for The New York Times:

Meta’s new foundational A.I. model, which the company has been working on for months, has fallen short of the performance of leading A.I. models from rivals like Google, OpenAI and Anthropic on internal tests for reasoning, coding and writing, said the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly about confidential matters.

The model, code-named Avocado, outperformed Meta’s previous A.I. model and did better than Google’s Gemini 2.5 model from [last] March, two of the people said. But it has not performed as strongly as Gemini 3.0 from November, they said.

As a result, Meta has delayed Avocado’s release to at least May from this month, the people said. They added that the leaders of Meta’s A.I. division had instead discussed temporarily licensing Gemini to power the company’s A.I. products, though no decisions have been reached.

The two facts in the last paragraph don’t square with me. May is only two months away. If they might ship then, why license Gemini? To me, the “we may need to pay Google to license Gemini” scenario is a sign that Avocado might be a bust and they might be a year or longer away from their own competitive model.

Mr. Zuckerberg, 41, has staked the future of Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, on being at the cutting edge of A.I. His company has spent billions hiring top A.I. researchers and committed $600 billion to building data centers to power the technology. In January, Meta projected that it would spend as much as $135 billion this year, nearly twice the $72 billion it spent last year.

The difference between Meta and Apple might be that Meta is merely a few months away from rolling out its own best-of-breed AI model. But the difference could be that Meta has blown hundreds of billions of dollars pursuing their own frontier models, and Apple has not, and both just license Gemini from Google.

Dade Hayes, reporting for Deadline:

While the rise of sports programming in recent years has been well-documented, new figures from Nielsen illustrate the extent of its dominance. The measurement firm said sports accounted for 29.2% of all advertising-supported TV viewing by people 25 to 54 years old during the fourth quarter. The stat, spanning broadcast, cable and streaming, was part of a report on viewership trends in the fourth quarter of 2025, released Thursday in the runup to upfronts.

Looking at the rest of the pie without sports, broadcast accounted for just 9.8%, with cable coming in at 18%. Streaming drew by far the largest tune-in, with 43% of all non-sports viewing, a reflection of the overall growth of advertising on streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, HBO Max and others.

Business Insider, one year ago:

Dario Amodei, the CEO of the AI startup Anthropic, said on Monday that AI, and not software developers, could be writing all of the code in our software in a year.

“I think we will be there in three to six months, where AI is writing 90% of the code. And then, in 12 months, we may be in a world where AI is writing essentially all of the code,” Amodei said at a Council of Foreign Relations event on Monday.

I’d marked this one on my claim chowder calendar a year ago, suspecting it would make for a laugh today. But while Amodei wasn’t exactly right, I think he was only wrong insofar as his remarks were too facile. It may well be true that 90 percent of the lines of programming code that are written today, Friday 13 March 2026, will have been generated by AI. If anything, it’s probably a higher percentage.

But where I think Amodei’s remarks, quoted above, are facile is that it hasn’t played out as simply that lines of code that would have been written by human programmers are now generated by AI models. That’s part of it, for sure. But what’s revolutionary — a topic I’ve been posting about twice already today — is that AI code generation tools are being used to create services and apps and libraries that simply would not have been written at all before. It may well be that the total number of lines of code that will be written by people today isn’t much different from the number of lines of code that were written by people a year ago. But there might be 10× more code generated by AI than is written by people today. Maybe more. Maybe a lot more? And a year or two or three from now, that might be 100× or 1,000× or 100,000×.

In that near future, human programmers are likely still to be writing — or at least line-by-line reviewing and approving — code. But as a percentage of all code being generated, that will only be a sliver.