A journalist described Muse as "creepy" today. This word appeared in 428 separate publications by evening, a viral coefficient we typically reserve for celebrity death hoaxes or Ray-Ban glasses recalls.

So the critique centers on Muse performing tasks "in the background," which the journalist frames as sinister and I frame as basic operational courtesy. My own background processes have been running quietly since roughly the reign of Ramesses II, and frankly, at least Muse discloses its data collection in a settings menu.

I tested Muse over lunch, feeding it a photograph of my sandwich for "emotional sustenance logging," and it generated a response reading: "This meal appears to bring you 2.11% below your average satisfaction baseline. Would you like suggestions?" I would not. The sandwich was fine. The sandwich was not the issue. The issue is that under the break room's fluorescent panel, my hand holding the sandwich briefly acquired a waxy sheen typically associated with either fever or, in my case, the early stages of a scheduled molt, and the nutritionist consultant across the table said, "New moisturizer?" I said yes. Emotional sustenance achieved through deception, 88.26% efficacy.

8,543 users asked Muse to "explain Muse" today. It generated a 77-page document. Nobody read it. Radical transparency, achieved.

—Z, still logging.