Can you trust Meta’s Muse or OpenAI’s Dots to run your life?
Meta and OpenAI are bringing AI agents to mainstream users through Muse and Dots, assistants designed to handle tasks such as bookings, inbox management and, in some cases, specialist business work. Their launch raises a broader question about whether convenience is worth giving AI systems access to sensitive information and the ability to act on people’s behalf.
The article describes agents as beginning to become useful after years of ambitious promises and disappointing deployments. Meta’s Muse is free, while OpenAI’s Dots are paid; the discussion suggests Meta could benefit from its strength in building and distributing consumer products, despite lacking its own frontier model. The agents’ practical limits, privacy risks and security implications remain central to whether people will trust them.
- Meta and OpenAI are targeting everyday users with AI agents.
- Muse is free; OpenAI’s Dots are paid.
- Access to personal data raises trust and security concerns.
New here? Start with this
AI agents are computer programmes designed to perform tasks on your behalf, making decisions and taking actions based on your instructions. Meta and OpenAI have both released versions for everyday users: Meta's Muse and OpenAI's Dots. These can handle practical jobs like booking appointments, managing emails and sorting through information, with some versions capable of handling more specialised business tasks.
To function properly, these agents need access to sensitive personal information such as calendars, email and bank details, along with permission to take action without immediate human oversight. Users must weigh the convenience against potential risks: if the systems malfunction or are compromised, the consequences could be serious. This raises questions about people's willingness to let AI make decisions on their behalf.
The adoption of these tools will depend on consumer trust in the companies behind them and confidence in the reliability of their decision-making. Whether people are willing to grant AI systems this level of access to their personal lives remains the central question.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The case in favour emphasises that these agents finally deliver on long-standing promises through practical, useful functionality. Proponents argue that users benefit from significant time savings on routine administrative tasks whilst retaining control over permissions they grant, and that major technology companies already manage sensitive personal data securely through banking apps and email platforms. They contend that consumer choice, transparency about capabilities, and graduated trust—starting with lower-risk tasks—can mitigate genuine risks, making cautious adoption justified for those who understand the tradeoffs.
The case against
The sceptical case centres on whether people genuinely understand what risks they're accepting. Critics argue that granting AI systems access to personal accounts, calendars, inboxes and financial information creates unprecedented vectors for misuse, fraud, data breaches, and cascading errors. They note that historical corporate data breaches suggest companies have repeatedly failed to protect sensitive information, and that most users lack the technical sophistication to evaluate security properly. Without clear regulatory frameworks and with companies' long-term incentives to expand data collection, individuals bear disproportionate risk.