upvote

points

by davesque17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ajam150713 hours ago|
next
[-]
> I'm assuming they wouldn't do something like this unless the recent load issues (mostly driven by OpenClaw usage) were seen as an existential threat.

I think another possibility is that they are trying to shift the burden of OpenClaw to their competitors.

reply
upvoteby tempaccount505010 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think this makes sense. I don't understand what problem OpenClaw is solving or what the use case is other than just burning a shit ton of tokens.
reply
upvoteby hrimfaxi56 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Openclaw is an always on AI assistant that's plugged into a bunch of MCPs. You don't understand what kinds of problems that can help solve and cant envision any use cases for that?
reply
upvoteby LtWorf5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's all the industry.
reply
upvoteby AbstractH242 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The irony of course is that the way they've gone about reacting to this has damaged their brand so badly at the trust level that the public view of their company has completely flipped.

I you are overstating how much of their user base cares about OpenClaw. Not nearly as bad as the DoD was for OpenAI (particularly because that cut into a pattern of how Sam Altman acts in general)

But it is a reminder they are just another company

reply
upvoteby Chyzwar2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
All SOTA model providers are losing money. When users run Opus, they are essentially renting a GPU cluster worth half a million dollars for a $100/$200 subscription. If they want to IPO, they need to show a projection toward profit. For that reason, they want to discourage power users and attract normies.
reply
upvoteby energy1232 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> All SOTA model providers are losing money.

Source? I only read one article on this topic and they approximated gross margins at 50%.

> When users run Opus, they are essentially renting a GPU cluster worth half a million dollars for a $100/$200 subscription.

They use a large batch size, you're sharing the GPU with many other people.

reply
upvoteby id0014 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> recent load issues (...) were seen as an existential threat

I wouldn't be so sure. Don't overestimate people competence.

For me it all looked like picking the highest ROI item in attempt to fix their reliability without putting too much thought how to do it gracefully. So they just hacked it and we see the results

reply
upvoteby seattle_spring17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The irony of course is that the way they've gone about reacting to this has damaged their brand so badly at the trust level that the public view of their company has completely flipped.

No one at my company gives a single shit about Openclaw, so this whole situation has been a noop for a lot more of the public than you seem to think.

Also, "censorship"? How is disallowing a specific tool that abuses a subscription "censorship"?

reply
upvoteby m4x14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No one at my company cares about OpenClaw either. We do care that we can be billed unexpectedly (either usage quota immediately being consumed, or being charged additional costs), generally with zero recourse, because a particular set of characters that Anthropic doesn't like appears somewhere in a repo.

This week the characters are "OpenClaw". I won't even try to guess what might lead to erroneous billing next week.

reply
upvoteby davesque15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I think the disallowing usage part was a great idea. I'd rather that Claude works well without getting DDOS'd. But merely mentioning OpenClaw causing session termination and extra charges? That's censorship. Also pretending not to know what OpenClaw is.

It's all just very weird and creepy.

reply
upvoteby pyridines14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
'censorship' may be too strong a word, but there is something unprecedented about this. AI tools are supposed to be general-purpose and able to assist with all sorts of tasks. It's expected that they are restricted when it comes to "unsafe" content like illegal or nsfw information and activities. However, this is the first time, to my knowledge, that an AI tool has been restricted from assisting with something that's perceived as a threat to the AI company.
reply
upvoteby KingMob1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> this is the first time, to my knowledge, that an AI tool has been restricted from assisting with something that's perceived as a threat to the AI company

You think so? I was under the impression that all the model providers have been trying to prevent use of their models to train competitor models for a while now.

reply
upvoteby MattRix16 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Everything I’ve heard about the company tells me they are obsessed about exponential growth. It might seem bad to make a change that loses you 10% of your users, but if those are your least profitable users and the rest of your userbase is growing 200% per month, why does it matter?
reply