The Claim

The claim, which spread in Korean tech communities, states: "They said the AI assistant makes the calls, but behind it was a contract worker." It alleges that Meta's Muse AI agent, promoted as making phone calls autonomously for users, relied on human staff to complete some of those calls.

What the Sources Show

According to the review, Meta's approach with its Hatch-related social AI agents was examined across 12 primary sources. The evidence indicates that human involvement was present in the call-handling feature, lending support to the core allegation. However, the available material does not fully establish the extent of human participation, nor does it clarify the employment status of the workers involved. The characterization of the staff as "contract workers" (계약직) therefore remains unconfirmed.

Unresolved Questions

The final judgment on the claim was "Mostly True" (대체로 사실). The finding reflects that the central allegation — human agents behind a supposedly AI-driven phone service — is supported by the reviewed evidence, while the details of staffing arrangements could not be independently established. The review of 12 primary sources, including Meta's own published material on its AI agents, leaves open whether the practice was systematic or limited to testing.

Meta's "Muse" phone-handling trial was backed in part by human workers, but the scale and terms of that staffing remain unconfirmed — making the overall claim Mostly True.