Who Approved the Training Data?

Meta introduced Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full yesterday. They’re designed for tasks that require agents to work through problems over time. Companies trying them through Muse Code should check the data settings before handing over a project.

Muse Code subscriptions default to Contributor mode. Subscribers get more usage in exchange for allowing Meta to train future models on the material they send and the responses they receive. That includes code, uploaded files and other context. Users can turn the setting off.

Muse Wonder’s pay-as-you-go API is available in Standard mode, which excludes that content from model training. Contributor mode is unavailable for Wonder through the API. The route your team chooses matters.

Consider an agency developer asking an agent to build a client dashboard. The useful context might include proprietary calculations, sample customer records and internal documentation. A subscription chosen for its usage allowance could also determine whether that work can become training material.

The client may have approved using AI to deliver the project. That approval may say nothing about contributing their material to a model provider. Someone at the agency still needs authority to make that choice.

Companies should specify which products, accounts and data settings are approved for each kind of work. And, importantly, someone has to check the actual configuration before connecting a repository or uploading client files.

Author’s note: This is not a sponsored post. I am the author of this article and it expresses my own opinions. I am not, nor is my company, receiving compensation for it. This work was created with the assistance of various generative AI models.