Claude Code refuses requests or charges extra if your commits mention "OpenClaw"

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

2ndorderthought wrote: post #200

ryandrake wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would "lots of gpus" even help for huge models? Maybe this is exposing my lack of knowledge but don't you need to keep the whole model and context in a single GPU's VRAM? My understanding is that multiple GPUs help with scaling (can handle N X inference requests simultaneously) but it doesn't help with using large models. If that were the case, I could jam another GPU in my box and double the size of model I can serv…

1t model instances(opus, gpt,etc) are not running on a single GPU. The catch is how the cards communicate and how the model is broken up. There's a bit that goes into it but the answer is yes the more gpus the bigger the model you can run.

Post by teiferer » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:35 PM UTC

macNchz wrote: post #203

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also they ain't wrong. In what other context does OpenClaw get mentioned? "You may not use our service if you mention OpenClaw" is a harsh line but hardly illegal or forbidden any more than any other service restriction (i.e. no use allowed for high-stakes financial modeling). Don't like it, cancel your plan.

There are plenty of ways you could wind up with a git commit containing "OpenClaw" despite zero interaction with OpenClaw itself...adding a blog post to a static site repo, or even a clause in your own app's ToS disallowing use of OpenClaw with your API.

Post by teiferer » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:36 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #232

abdullin wrote: post #46

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 wonder if projects which are anti-AI could place such identifiers surreptitiously into docs or commits as a way to sabotage people using Claude Code. Your project isn't going to get many AI PRs if just cloning your project wiped out their quota.

Post by 2ndorderthought » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:38 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #251

2ndorderthought wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1t model instances(opus, gpt,etc) are not running on a single GPU. The catch is how the cards communicate and how the model is broken up. There's a bit that goes into it but the answer is yes the more gpus the bigger the model you can run.

Really cool. I'm very much still learning about this stuff. Sounds like this inter-GPU communication is a feature of special hardware (not consumer GPUs).

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 5:40 PM UTC

rohansood15 wrote: post #206

otterley wrote: post #121

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.