> Wouldn't you yearn for any more impact given how much that amount of resource could improve the lives of many, if used wisely?

Cynical take: increasing Meta's stock value does improve the lifes of many - the many stock holders.

Thus: when you talk about improving lifes, you better specify which group you are targeting, and why you selected this particular group.

I am interested in improving the lives of the many people who cannot afford to be stockholders

The reason I'm interested in this is twofold

First, I think the current system is exploitative. I don't advocate for communism or anything, but the current system of extracting value from the lower class is disgusting

Second, they outnumber the successful people by a vast margin and I don't want them to have a reason to re-invent the guillotine

> they outnumber the successful people by a vast margin

you can be successful and lower class.

The world is sufficiently large and complex that a few months wouldn’t even scrape the tip of the iceberg.

I agree. I just personally wouldn’t want to wander around exploring it continuously for months without more interesting work/goals. Even though cultures and geography may be wonderfully varied, their ranges are way smaller than what could be.

If you want to improve the lives of many, by all means go for it, I think that is a wonderful ambition to have in live and something I strive for, too!

But we are talking about an ad company here, trying to branch out into ai to sell more ads, right? Meta existing is without a doubt a net negative for mankind.