111–120 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don't understand how he is a scam artist. Lots of people are using the things he built. TBH this kind of rhetoric is a bit degrading experience on this website
Having said that, we ought just downvote and move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But.... why ? Like I read his thing on how he spends the tokens [0] and it sounds like satire. He has agents write shitty code for features other agents think other people want, then has it reviewed by other agents in hopes of catching bugs that the first agent put there, then has some more agents try to find security bugs in the now double-agented code to make it triple-agented and at the end of the day, he spent a…
>He then has the sense of humor to call this grotesque process "incredibly lean". > What's the point in all of this? What problems is this solving? Who's benefiting? The economy doesn't work like how you think it does. Its not central planning. All the usages aren't detailed in a specification, submitted for approval to 100 agencies and then allowed to be used. It shows lack of intellectual curiosity to not engage de…
I'm aware. That is in fact my central critique. The way it works is incredibly wasteful of our limited resources, as illustrated by this guy burning through fuel during a time of crisis for no perceptible gain.
> It shows lack of intellectual curiosity to not engage deeply with obviously profound technology and what the implications are.
The "obviously profound" is an assertion without proof.
The rest I agree with, we should engage with the implications of burning through energy to build features that bots think humans want, but nobody actually asked for, all while climate scientists are telling us we're heading for the apocalypse. It is intellectually incurious to just ignore the questions of why and at what cost, maybe even dangerously so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But.... why ? Like I read his thing on how he spends the tokens [0] and it sounds like satire. He has agents write shitty code for features other agents think other people want, then has it reviewed by other agents in hopes of catching bugs that the first agent put there, then has some more agents try to find security bugs in the now double-agented code to make it triple-agented and at the end of the day, he spent a…
But this is okay? “He has /people/ write shitty code for features other /people/ think other people want, then has it reviewed by other /people/ in hopes of catching bugs that the first /people/ put there, then has some more /people/ try to find security bugs in the now /double-peopled/ code to make it /triple-peopled/ and at the end of the day, he spent a shitton of /money, the people/ probably emitted enough carbon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not joking when I say this, if you pay me 1.3 million dollars today, I will get so much more done with just a single 200$ codex sub in 30 days than he has in 30 days, I can promise you that. I just checked the code and feature outputs, and I can build all that in 15 days, for 1.3M USD. Fuck I would do it for 1M... Scratch that, if it's 300K then sure I could do the same too, if you paid me that for 30 days of wo…
I don't understand. Are you saying you're capable of building a rival to Openclaw in a few days, but you're just choosing not to? That's amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Peter shows the near-term future. Raw API consumer price cost is arbitrary. (The frontier labs can put a 100x markup to cover other operational expenses.) The true cost of inference with same-capability models keeps dropping at dizzying rates, especially at the data-center batch size. (Due to both NVidia hardware and algorithmic changes.) So the developments that Peter can achieve today with internal support from Ope…
But.... why ? Like I read his thing on how he spends the tokens [0] and it sounds like satire. He has agents write shitty code for features other agents think other people want, then has it reviewed by other agents in hopes of catching bugs that the first agent put there, then has some more agents try to find security bugs in the now double-agented code to make it triple-agented and at the end of the day, he spent a…
The morality issues about consumption climate impacts are not his alone, and are not unique by itself to his endeavor. Every company with an enterprise LLM agreement has a share, for instance.
What product or feature did he build with it and how much ARR did it generate for OpenAI?
If you look at what happened with Sora, you know none of this matters.
Just wait till this OpenClaw thing is over.
He should be brought to the hague XD
"Programmers don't need unions or professional standards, it will stand in our way of making as much money as we can, and will slow down the speed of software development".
With that said, HN does provide the tools to find users that said things like this and if I wasn't lazy I'd love to find at least a few that said things like the above, but are now pearl clutching over AI being bad they are going to crush the things down to singularities.
What a clown. And Twitter bozos will cheer and clap. As far as money spent, this is still much better than rounding up and/or bombing brown people, but shows insanity of the current market. The saddest part is that bootlickers/temporarily embarrassed AI millionaires will defend this. And of course I'm just yet another envious hater from "the orange website". Your conscience is clear, AI bros. /s
OpenClaw is the fastest growth open source project ever. This isn’t clowning.
You need to try really hard to convince me that OpenClaw is more important or has done more good than React or the 10 projects "below" it.
As any if this matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.getpanto.ai/blog/openclaw-ai-platform-statistics Because a solo dev has deployed to millions of people in less than eight months spending I believe zero dollars on marketing. We should all be so lucky to clown at this scale.
I'm sorry, where did you get millions of deployments? I see 300k+ Github stars, that have as much worth as a bookmarked page (why don't we count those too?). And 2 mil (alleged) website views, which is also moderately nothing.
I don’t feel the need to spend all day auditing, and I don’t care very much, but generally I think the combination of Nvidia corporate enthusiasm, available github stats and industry analysis all tells a pretty coherent story: A project with 70k forks on github is likely to have more than, say 700k users. My own fork-to-usage ratio is far less than that.
Put another way, I would suggest that most public evidence points one direction. If you believe something else, that’s fine. But if you want to convince me there’s less than, say, 100k deployments worldwide, I’d want to understand where those numbers came from before being convinced.