Serious question: Is all of the Muse noise actually organic, or is there a giant astroturfing campaign? Like John Gruber has endlessly talked about Muse since its dropped, often in a weirdly glowing fashion, and it's incredibly weird given that a) he is almost always hyper-critical of Meta, b) It isn't Apple, c) nothing about Muse is unique or novel or differentiating.
I don't get it. Is Meta handing out big $ for everyone to make Muse happen?
Of course not. Meta is a corrosive cancer on society, they are a disinformation torrent for an idiocracy, and they should be banned as government propaganda everywhere not named American America of America(Trump IncTM).
I cannot even deign to imagine someone trusting that company with an iota of their personal information, or that it would do anything constructive with it.
But I've seen enough people (presumably) astroturfing about it to know what their latest desperate "we matter" pitch is, and it just doesn't sound compelling at all. Certainly not to warrant the constant citations.
come on man have a bit of theory of mind. people just don't care that much about privacy and Meta has a half decent product. Personal agents are here to stay and they are the future. It works and obviously its going to permeate.
Someone asked me my own usage, and I specifically answered that. I didn't broadly answer for everyone. So I feel you had the theory of mind thing in the chamber and misfired.
I understand that a lot of people use Meta products as an inertia from decades past. Indisputable. Yet several long-time avowed Meta critics, who I am quite certain do not use the product, are suddenly gushing about yet another agent and endlessly namedropping Muse. It is hugely suspicious.
> I cannot even deign to imagine someone trusting that company with an iota of their personal information, or that it would do anything constructive with it.
?
On the other part of your comment: well, agree to disagree. Its probably just a good product and not everyone's hyper sensitive to privacy concerns.
llm_nerd · · focus · HN ↗
I don't get it. Is Meta handing out big $ for everyone to make Muse happen?
taterbase · · focus · HN ↗
llm_nerd · · focus · HN ↗
I cannot even deign to imagine someone trusting that company with an iota of their personal information, or that it would do anything constructive with it.
But I've seen enough people (presumably) astroturfing about it to know what their latest desperate "we matter" pitch is, and it just doesn't sound compelling at all. Certainly not to warrant the constant citations.
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
llm_nerd · · focus · HN ↗
I understand that a lot of people use Meta products as an inertia from decades past. Indisputable. Yet several long-time avowed Meta critics, who I am quite certain do not use the product, are suddenly gushing about yet another agent and endlessly namedropping Muse. It is hugely suspicious.
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
?
On the other part of your comment: well, agree to disagree. Its probably just a good product and not everyone's hyper sensitive to privacy concerns.
lern_too_spel · · focus · HN ↗