> you better believe the other thing it's supposed to do aside from build a picture of your friends and loved ones is to figure out what makes you love to shop. This is actually some of the most nauseating prompt text i have ever read.
And idk what's even being implied by that quote. (Yes, it tries to help you shop. And? Or is the critique just that OP doesn't like the prose in that markdown file?)
Disclaimer: I work at Meta, not on Muse
I don't know how anyone can use Muse. It's like taking everything that Facebook has had to guess and infer about you over the years using various analytics and instead just dumping it directly into a chat bot and giving the company everything it wants. Zuckerberg and his soulless C-suite must be licking their lips.
You're free to speculate that Meta is lying about what it will or won't use the data for. I won't argue over that. That's an important topic and I'm not gonna persuade anyone via an HN comment. Skepticism is fine
But the example linked to in the above comment is not evidence of that at all. A skill explaining how to format purchase history in markdown format is not evidence of hidden motivations.
In general the entire thread is nothing-burger, and that's all I'm getting at.
We all know Meta can already track things like certain purchases. A skill file telling AI how to format purchase history in markdown format is not going to help any of Meta's ads or RecSys systems.
You can believe Meta does bad things without thinking everything Meta does is an example of said bad things
Facebook has broken its promises about user data many times before. I don't buy anything they say about Muse, and nobody in their right mind should. Unless they’re getting paid to, of course.
Aside, if “a skill file organizing purchase history in markdown format” is the only thing you took away from that thread, you might want to take a closer look.
I mean… little drops of water make the ocean, so if the complaint is with the drop then yes. Doesn’t mean the ocean is poisoned by some of these droplets though.
Two things can be true at the same time - Facebook as a whole is untrustable but you can use Muse Glimmer from them without giving them this data.
Since the article discusses metaphors... think about it as a snitch.
You're free to believe whatever you want about Meta. But no, you shouldn't point to non-evidence, interpret it through the lens of your prior beliefs, and then claim that it's actually evidence supporting your beliefs.
> Aside, if “a skill file organizing purchase history in markdown format” is the only thing you took away from that thread, you might want to take a closer look.
That's what that specific quote I was referencing was referring to. I already responded to the supposed prompt injection/security concerns above.
Not parent, but it is worth responding to as it applies. Not prior beliefs. From prior actions. Unless you are only now becoming aware of the existing ecosystem, there is almost no way in which you can buy into that ecosystem without expecting hard rug pull. And the beauty is, everyone gets to make a choice, but they best do it is with eyes wide open and the understanding of the deal for it will be changing soon.
I think you're saying that prior actions justify the beliefs you hold. Fair enough, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.
My above comment still stands. Even if your beliefs are justified, that doesn't mean you should treat non-evidence as evidence supporting your beliefs. (Tbh my point is kinda trivial/pedantic. But I feel like folks just always want to double down that every criticism of meta is correct).
Ayyy! You're one of the folks I wrote my comment [0] for!
But if someone posts the thread with no other context than "check this out", then it seems appropriate explain this missing context.
And for the record, I did scroll back read through what he's saying as you suggested. The broader context is exactly what makes it clear he's just a bit confused about what he's "uncovered". (Obvious caveat: I haven't read through everything this guy has written, I could be missing something)
Did you also scroll forward to read what he wrote after the stuff in the thread that was linked to? This tool is pretty obviously designed -whether intentionally or not- to enable the exfiltration of a ton of sensitive data to untrusted third parties while leaving its intended user none the wiser.
a) More being surprised the muse will just provide internal details (which again, as intended) b) the bash scripts are ugly (okay? I don't think that's what we're arguing about) c) surprise that muse runs as root (then realizing this is explained by the VM-in-VM model and linking to the blog which explains this) d) surprise that muse can run as a seed box (idk is this supposed to be the security concern?)
Could you please be more specific about which part you're concerned about? I think that'd be more productive than linking to a long thread, me responding to what I see, then being told that it's just a scratch pad and I'm silly for taking it seriously but also if I look closer I'll see the deeper truth.
Yeah, given how this has been going, I expected that sort of misrepresentation. A careful reader remembers that this is what I said:
You should pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading. Yeah, it's a huge pain in the ass, but this is -AFAICT- the guy's personal notepad, rather than some place where formal reports usually go. If someone walked over, picked up my personal notepad at $DAYJOB, and complained about how they couldn't make sense of it, I'd tell them to fuck right off, yanno?
<https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117353184983766316>
<https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117361988874888258>
<https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117381101404641742>
TBH I saw none of those comments by scrolling forward or backwards from the original link. Now it turns out I supposed to be checking quote tweets, not just scrolling like you said above? (tbf I'm not familiar with the neuromatch UI, could be user error on my part).
Again, I think this would've gone smoother if you actually articulated the problem you're concerned about, instead of linking to a "personal notepad" which you acknowledge has mistakes and isn't easily intelligible, and then blaming me for missing the actual point.
I'll look through these new comments later.
Edit: I see from your original comment what you meant by "top-level". I originally assumed you just meant top of the thread. I'll take the L here.
Like I mentioned I don't work on Muse, and I suppose it'd wouldn't be appropriate for me (self-identified Meta employee) to publicly speculate on what defenses do and don't exist or what is intended. (sorry kinda a cop-out, I know).
Thanks for providing specific links to the specific concerns being raised.
That investigation is still ongoing, and that subthread doesn't contain all the information from it. You should pop up to that -er- blog's top level, scroll back until you find the start of the investigation, and then start reading. Yeah, it's a huge pain in the ass, but this is -AFAICT- the guy's personal notepad, rather than some place where formal reports usually go. If someone walked over, picked up my personal notepad at $DAYJOB, and complained about how they couldn't make sense of it, I'd tell them to fuck right off, yanno?