Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 729 posts

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#411

Post by Barbing »

SoftTalker wrote: post #393
nikcub wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "just ChatGPT, what is Sol?." i'd really like to see some analytics on what proportion of users have ever switched the model in chatgpt because I anecdotally believe it is < 5%

I didn't even know you could. Work pays for ChatGPT and I just assumed it is what it is.

On average, generally, do you dig into settings (or maybe if something works, good enough usually)?

(I’m always on the hunt for “please don’t just friggin sell my data to everyone, if you’re scared enough over getting sued that you’ll listen to the toggle” and “disable sponsored this-and-that”. Plus power user stuff.)

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#412

Post by Barbing »

nikcub wrote: post #276
abixb wrote: post #234

I think Meta's strategy is to capture the 'normie-tier' of AI users. I know most of us here on HN track model releases quite frequently and discuss every parameter weight out of them, but most of the world is just... oblivious? I was discussing latest in tech with an accounting friend out of curiosity, and I kept talking about tiers of GPT-5.6 (Sol vs Terra vs Luna) and asked which one she used on the desktop 'Work'…

> "just ChatGPT, what is Sol?." i'd really like to see some analytics on what proportion of users have ever switched the model in chatgpt because I anecdotally believe it is < 5%

95%(?) have never paid. Maybe that helps the stats: for those who’ve paid, perhaps it’s all the way to 10% who’ve switched models?

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#413

Post by SoftTalker »

Barbing wrote: post #411
SoftTalker wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't even know you could. Work pays for ChatGPT and I just assumed it is what it is.

On average, generally, do you dig into settings (or maybe if something works, good enough usually)? (I’m always on the hunt for “please don’t just friggin sell my data to everyone, if you’re scared enough over getting sued that you’ll listen to the toggle” and “disable sponsored this-and-that”. Plus power user stuff.)

I used to, very much. I've slowly come around over the last ten years or so to just using everything in its default config. I guess I don't want to spend the time I have left fiddling with settings.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#414

Post by gorgoiler »

weitendorf wrote: post #289

The inline browser the agent uses that you can take control of or watch is awesome! This is something I built a lot of tools to do in the past year (including a similar inline UX/image + click pass through) but having it Just Work in a remote, fully managed client for free is extremely convenient and useful. But… this feels like a UX that won’t last once a significant portion of consumers and purchases adopt it. Eith…

Your example is about helping a consumer navigate a market to get the best product and I think it’s bang on.

Too many sectors of the economy sell the lie that they are operating as a free market when in reality they are confusopolies that inflate their margins by being tricking me into buying the worse product.

I can’t wait to have an agent navigate and summarize my options for me, so I can choose without having to be dragged through deal terms salad.

Choose from $9.99 for 1000 minutes then 12c/min and maximum 400 minute per day, $12.99 for 2000 minutes then 10c/min local only, both with optional NationalTalkXtra add on for $1.99, or $14.99 for unlimited minutes up to 1000 minutes per day, and 2c/min thereafter except on weekends with our $2.99 WeekendPlus addon…

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#415

Post by monk_grilla »

svachalek wrote: post #315
fathermarz wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very accurate. I teach seniors about how to use AI responsibly and they are always mind blown, and I keep it very high level. The amount of Chat”GTP” users there are out there that have no idea who the main vendors are. Most of them also think that Google is just a “search” company.

Wait, isn't it ChatGBD?

ChatGibbity

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#416

Post by jmathai »

gorgoiler wrote: post #404
jmathai wrote: post #340

> Your personal data is safe and secure That's from the article. I can't think of anyone I'd trust less with my data than Meta. Well, thieves, I guess.

Do you mean in terms of competence at resisting breaches? I trust Meta’s security team a lot more than anyone else’s in that respect. They are big enough and pay well to have a competent team. Compared with momandpop.com (willing but too small) or equifax (big but unwilling) and given the kind of data they are guarding, they’re probably the best in the business.

I trust Meta will keep those they don't want to access the data out. It's Meta that I don't trust.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#417

Post by throwaway2037 »

abixb wrote: post #234

I think Meta's strategy is to capture the 'normie-tier' of AI users. I know most of us here on HN track model releases quite frequently and discuss every parameter weight out of them, but most of the world is just... oblivious? I was discussing latest in tech with an accounting friend out of curiosity, and I kept talking about tiers of GPT-5.6 (Sol vs Terra vs Luna) and asked which one she used on the desktop 'Work'…

I confess that when I ride the subway, I like to peer at other people's phones to see what they are doing. The ones that interest me the most are other people talking with an LLM. I am always surprised by the wide variety of people who are using LLMs to ask an infinite variety of questions. From the surface-level PR annoucement here by Meta, this seems like a good business idea.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#418

Post by jmathai »

hokumguru wrote: post #379
jmathai wrote: post #340

> Your personal data is safe and secure That's from the article. I can't think of anyone I'd trust less with my data than Meta. Well, thieves, I guess.

I trust Meta far more than, say, Anthropic. For one, the judgments against them from the government just mean that they have tons of oversight and auditing happening now. The other providers are just the wild west with privacy.

Really? There's so much information about how Meta targeted children with addictive design patterns. They paid the fine, and profited in the meantime. Do you really think they have any reason not to do the same in the future?
Post reply on HN