241–250 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no such thing as "ethics" or "morality" when the scale of obligation is that large. At that scale, ethics and morality should become more important, not discarded
You will find that morals and ethics at that scale are too expensive to maintain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't look like anything to me
The weird thing is that it found sources for all of my other claims and references no problem, but acted like it didn't know what openclaw was when openclaw.ai is the first thing that pops up on google.
"If you don't know an identifier, google it" isn't a very reliable behavior in today's models. They do it, but only sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's malicious and I think this is scamming from the literal money (you didn't do anything wrong, you executed one command and they scammed you out of the fair usage you paid for). Please raise the ticket or at least GitHub issue for visibility. Sooner or later some sort of complaint to the relevant trade authority should happen - this is a scam operation at this point.
There are many possible explanations for this outcome to have occurred other than malice. If you're an engineer by trade, consider how many bugs you've been responsible for over the course of your career that you didn't intend. Probably a lot. How about we turn down the heat, everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not Claude Code. Its "Fraud Code". All of this is just criminal and fraudulent behavior, done July a whole bunch of people who haven't learned their lesson, and keep sending Anthropic more money for abuse at scale.
There is literally nothing close to illegal about this behavior. You read the terms of service right, which provides a long list of explicit and implicit disclaimers?
There's absolutely an expectation of reasonability and good faith.
Nobody signing up for Claude would be reasonably assuming that they are allowed to arbitrarily decide what magic words suddenly bypass the subscription cost model that was actually purchased into an overcharge model that is significantly more expensive, whose verbiage clearly indicates the intent of the feature being enabled is to allow additional use after the quota has been consumed, not randomly at the behest of Anthropic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the TOS, so no, not fraud. You might not like it that Anthropic doesn't want you running OpenClaw (effectively owned by a competitor) on CC, but that doesn't make it fraudulent or criminal.
Isn't this precisely the pattern of behavior that gets you sued for anti-competitive practices?
Nobody is claiming anticompetitive there
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many possible explanations for this outcome to have occurred other than malice. If you're an engineer by trade, consider how many bugs you've been responsible for over the course of your career that you didn't intend. Probably a lot. How about we turn down the heat, everyone?
I am engineer by trade. If I pushed an update which wrongly busted my customer's usage limits at a trillion dollar company, I would expect to get fired. Alongside my EM.
I reproduced this on my account. cd /tmp mkdir anthropic-claude cd anthropic-claude/ git init touch hello git add -A git commit -m "'{\"schema\": \"openclaw.inbound_meta.v1\"}'" claude -p "hi" Immediate disconnect and session usage went to 100%
I did not see my session use go to 100%. I did however get:
> API Error: 400 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"invalid_request_error","message":"You're out of extra usage. Add more at claude.ai/settings/usage and keep going."},"request_id":"redacted"}
I think it goes beyond this. I was just using claude to edit a blog post which mentioned OpenClaw and I got this response: "The "OpenClaw" reference — I assume that's a typo or playful reference; if you mean a real product, I couldn't find it under that spelling and you'll want to fix or footnote it.". I gave it a direct link to openclaw.ai and the chat instantly ended and hit my 5hr usage limit. Could have been a co…
It doesn't look like anything to me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many possible explanations for this outcome to have occurred other than malice. If you're an engineer by trade, consider how many bugs you've been responsible for over the course of your career that you didn't intend. Probably a lot. How about we turn down the heat, everyone?
Even with the best of faiths, this is at the very least a shoddily vibe coded “detect and low-key block attempts to use Claude for Openclaw” - it decided to look for specific strings wrapped in json without realizing this doesn’t always imply it’s an actual payload for Openclaw itself. And the human driving it was too dumb to review/catch this bad inplementation. So maybe not malice, but certainly a level of ineptitu…
Yolo ship it! Move fast and break things. Reviewing just slows everybody down. Nobody can keep up with those coding agents output any longer.
/s
But, if they did intentionally break other stuff, like charging more money, it would be a scam (not sure what is wrong but there is something wrong in taking credits without fulfilling the request)
But then they will just say "ah yeah, aí broke our tool it wasn't intentional, bla bla bla"