The lines between Codex, ChatGPT Work, and Dots is getting a bit blurry to me. I think the target should be a remote agent(s) in its own sandbox with long memory, and all three are heading in that direction so why have the distinctions?
Unless Dots is dramatically more capable than Muse, I'm also more bullish on Muse than Dots. I think Muse is a better consumer play because it can be forever subsidized by Meta ads and find distribution in family of apps while Dots is in a weird place between consumer & professional. From the release, it also sounds like you'll have to pay per Dot at some point which doesn't sound appealing.
While there are people around here that think Anthropic/OpenAI tokens are "subsidized" to this day, I find it much more plausible that Muse tokens are, given Metas strategy of burning money, including on AI models, in hope of making something happen in a market they want to enter.
calling the tokens "subsidized" in a Muse subscription is incoherent. they arent selling the tokens. they are selling a product. the tokens are just part of the cost of making a product just like any other product in existence.
Trusting Meta literally a bad idea every single time. Like, every single time. Just use some open source stuff, or hell I've been building this for like the past year because I hate these companies: <a href="https://blackbear.app" rel="nofollow">https://blackbear.app
Well from my perspective I'm not a developer, $20/month for ChatGPT is the most I'm willing to pay to have access to a top class AI. I happily downloaded Muse to try out to figure out my own personal use case, and it's been pretty good so I could see myself eventually doing the $16/month plan if I need to hit so far the usage is pretty generous.
All this to say that at $100/month it's a complete non-starter.
It’s meant for rich casuals. If you watch the presentation, everyone they depicted using it seemed to be in some high paying which collar profession. I.e. it’s for people like the people who work at open ai.
I mean, I wouldn't touch anything done by meta if they were paying me that amount. I trust them the least with my private data - google does make money with via my data, but at least they have some resemblance of competency, especially when it comes to protecting said data.
While meta can't get Facebook to properly load a video or a comment chain on their goddamn main platform.
I would think Meta has learned a ton about cybersecurity and privacy + has quite established infra at this point. I would think twice before dismissing them based on vibes
This is some worst case scenario behavior for an agent. Whatever Meta has learned, they don’t apply. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/1001886/meta-muse-ai-facebook-marketplace-security-concerns" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/1001886/...
wxw · · focus · HN ↗
Unless Dots is dramatically more capable than Muse, I'm also more bullish on Muse than Dots. I think Muse is a better consumer play because it can be forever subsidized by Meta ads and find distribution in family of apps while Dots is in a weird place between consumer & professional. From the release, it also sounds like you'll have to pay per Dot at some point which doesn't sound appealing.
rolosa · · focus · HN ↗
LollipopYakuza · · focus · HN ↗
abirch · · focus · HN ↗
jstummbillig · · focus · HN ↗
anthonypasq · · focus · HN ↗
vineyardmike · · focus · HN ↗
espadrine · · focus · HN ↗
rheisen_ · · focus · HN ↗
rolosa · · focus · HN ↗
All this to say that at $100/month it's a complete non-starter.
ModernMech · · focus · HN ↗
gf000 · · focus · HN ↗
While meta can't get Facebook to properly load a video or a comment chain on their goddamn main platform.
baby · · focus · HN ↗
baq · · focus · HN ↗
rkagerer · · focus · HN ↗
jeffgreco · · focus · HN ↗