Comparing OpenAI's Dot and Meta's Muse as always-on AI assistants
Meta's Muse and OpenAI's Dot are competing AI agents designed to keep working on tasks after a user steps away, using their own cloud environments and outside service connections. Muse operates in a dedicated secure virtual machine with a browser and can be reached through its apps, the web or WhatsApp, while Dot is embedded in ChatGPT and can use plugins, memory and scheduled jobs. Both still need oversight and permissions for sensitive actions, and their pricing and access differ.
Meta introduced Muse on September 8, while OpenAI followed roughly three weeks later with always-on agents inside ChatGPT. Both are designed to keep operating after a user disengages, using separate cloud computers and links to external services. Muse runs in a secure virtual machine with a browser and can be accessed through apps, the web, or WhatsApp; Dot is built into ChatGPT, uses GPT-6 Astra, supports plugins, memory, and scheduled or recurring tasks.
Pricing and access differ sharply. Muse offers a capped free tier, with paid plans at $20 and $100 monthly. Dot access starts at $100 monthly for individual Pro users, while Business Premium costs $100 per user monthly annually or $125 monthly. OpenAI's Dot rollout excludes the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK for eligible Pro users; business availability varies, and enterprise access remains in beta.
Count words. First para: Meta(1) introduced2 Muse3 on4 September5 8,6 while7 OpenAI8 followed9 roughly10 three11 weeks12 later13 with14 always-on15 agents16 inside17 ChatGPT.18 Both19 are20 designed21 to22 keep23 operating24 after25 a26 user27 disengages,28 using29 separate30 cloud31 computers32 and33 links34 to35 external36 services.37 Muse38 runs39 in40 a41 secure42 virtual43 machine44 with45 a46 browser47 and48 can49 be50 accessed51 through52 apps,53 the54 web,55 or56 WhatsApp;57 Dot58 is59 built60 into61 ChatGPT,62 uses63 GPT-664 Astra,65 supports66 plugins,67 memory,68 and69 scheduled70 or71 recurring72 tasks.73
Second: Pr
Always-on agents could shift how consumers, workers, and small businesses delegate routine digital tasks, from scheduling to research and purchases. Their value may depend on linked accounts and permissions, so privacy and oversight concerns could grow alongside convenience. Higher subscription costs may limit who can use the most capable versions, while mistakes or blocked services could shape trust. Over time, these tools may influence expectations around personal assistance, automation, and accountability online. Count: Always-on1 agents2 could3 shift