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

421–430 of 716 posts

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#421

Post by Barbing »

yalok wrote: post #402
Barbing wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any privacy concerns you had connecting your email?

yes, it was not easy to mentally give that access, but then I heard from friends how much work was put in into securing it and separating LLM/agents from the API tokens access (also saw this detailed blog post from the lead developer - https://research.meta.ai/blog/security-and-safety-for-ai-age... ), plus I had the pressure to get the problem resolved - so I decided to risk and try it out. Eventually, though, Muse C…

Ah, your concern was about an LLM messing something up, vs. about becoming a (tiny tiny) piece of training data for Zucky / getting slightly more targeted ads (or price discriminated against or something in the future)?

Mm, I see a small note on the second half of a bullet ( https://about.fb.com/news/2026/09/introducing-muse-personal-... ) that you can opt out of training. I know I’m a privacy weirdo since this didn’t make the FAQ in the OP:

  “— People can change access or disconnect a service whenever they want. People can also opt out of their interactions being used to train Meta’s AI models.”
Guess you can opt out on the free tier? (I’m not much [read: at all] trusting of the company but I know many are fine either way.) Not saying I’m happy about having my emails on Google’s servers btw or would be comfortable connecting email to Anthropic/OpenAI.

Wonder if opting out of training means they’d avoid using information gleaned from our emails to better serve their advertisers. Without knowing I guess I’d be concerned about even correspondents of mine using the service.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#422

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ajkjk wrote: post #240
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 think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people don't know acronym "LLM". Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money. Etc.

> Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money.

I agree with your general premise but that one sounds like bullshit to me. Tons of people who otherwise don't know anything about LLMs know about these companies specifically because they are worth a lot of money, and of course tons of people know who OpenAI is because of ChatGPT.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#423

Post by N_Lens »

rr808 wrote: post #284
abixb wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should really question your worldview a bit. Yeah, I still struggle with it. I have a diverse friend circle and sometimes I forget that most of them don't have the same information diet that I do (or don't even care about tech the way I do). Maybe I should be more like them and just chill? I don't know.

Tech is a rather minor part of the world of knowledge. How many languages do you know? Do you know the styles of Renaissance painters? Slept with super-model? Ever seen an elephant stampede? Meditated by the Ganges? Read thousands of stories? Climbed a mountain so high you need Oxygen? Tech stuff is so boring.

Are these achievements you’ve personally experienced?

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#424

Post by alex1138 »

digitaltrees wrote: post #218
hazelnut wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Your data is safe with us, trust me bro" /s

Want anyone at Harvards personal info? How do you have that? I dont know they trust me because they are stupid. The fact that this conversation is public and anyone uses meta garbage is what's wrong with so many things

People generally reply to this with "He was making a point. He wasn't saying he couldn't be trusted, he was saying 'I could be anyone'"

I don't get it. I think he meant exactly how it looks on paper

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#425

Post by ajkjk »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #266
ajkjk wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people don't know acronym "LLM". Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money. Etc.

> OpenAI this is unnecessarily austere or whatever - people absolutely know what openai is because lots of "normies" now use chatgpt https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dRE41eYkui4

I think you are wrong, but of course it's just a guess.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#426

Post by throwaway2037 »

abixb wrote: post #247
ajkjk wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people don't know acronym "LLM". Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money. Etc.

> you should really question your worldview a bit. Yeah, I still struggle with it. I have a diverse friend circle and sometimes I forget that most of them don't have the same information diet that I do (or don't even care about tech the way I do). Maybe I should be more like them and just chill? I don't know.

    > I forget that most of them don't have the same information diet that I do
It is interesting that you conflate "information diet" with "tech". The biggest info junkies I have ever met are: (1) medical doctors, (2) STEM PhDs, and (3) journalists. There are probably some other categories that I am missing. And almost none of the info they are consuming is "tech".

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#427

Post by alexkkoo93 »

BrokenCogs wrote: post #224
sroerick wrote: post #12

Facebook is the first to market with a polished openclaw? Good for them. I'm sure many others will criticize other aspects of Meta, and rightly so. But imagine using a Claw agent with zero tech support available

They're not the first. Each lab has its own: grok bot, codex desktop, perplexity computer, Claude whatever

Only Grokbot, openclAw, hermes, and instinct compare right now due to the mobile-first form factor.

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#429

Post by anon7000 »

tyre wrote: post #398
ajkjk wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people don't know acronym "LLM". Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money. Etc.

TIL openai owns chat.com I hung out with my parents this weekend and heard them talking about "chat", as a noun. I assumed they were talking about ChatGPT; there being a literal chat.com makes sense why they'd call it that.

Just redirects to chatgpt.com

Re: Muse – Meta’s personal AI agent

#430

Post by rpozarickij »

tyre wrote: post #398
ajkjk wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I'd add that... if this wasn't obvious to you without being told, you should really question your worldview a bit. A lot of people think that chat.com is an AI called "chat". Most people don't know acronym "LLM". Most people don't know about the existence of companies called "OpenAI" or "Anthropic", or that they are worth a lot of money. Etc.

TIL openai owns chat.com I hung out with my parents this weekend and heard them talking about "chat", as a noun. I assumed they were talking about ChatGPT; there being a literal chat.com makes sense why they'd call it that.

I've seen people using "chat" to refer to ChatGPT because it's easier/simpler. I'm pretty sure an average person has no idea that chat.com will redirect you to chatgpt.com (or what a redirect is for that matter). It's similar to how people were calling the COVID-19 pandemic or the virus itself "covid".
Post reply on HN