[dead]
Nvidia NemoClaw
271–280 of 291 posts
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have to know their reasoning in order to know public github history is not necessarily an accurate record of all changes.
Okay, so there's overwhelming evidence that their public github history is accurate and Nemoclaw was written in a weekend, and the only reason to think it's not accurate is that... it's technically possible to edit git history, and also there's no reasonable explanation for why they would have edited git history they way they did. So... yeah, draw your own conclusion I guess, whatever.
Lmfao. This is how I know you have never worked at a big company before. I promise you every big company has processes around open sourcing things. It's not something that just whip up and release over a weekend. Just the legal approval would have taken months
I have buddies at Nvidia. Their primary platform is not GitHub. Sorry you're so naive. Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two prior. Then private repo. Approvals. Then public
Not to mention the fact that Jensen literally announced it in their biggest yearly launch conference. No you're totally right. He mandated someone build it over the weekend while drafting up a full presentation and launch announcement about it
That's more plausible than the very normal practice of developing internally, scrubbing commits of any accidental whoopsies, vetting it and then putting it out publicly
"Overwhelming evidence" = git history that is completely fungible. Once you're done here I have a lobster claw to sell you
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it even better is that these dogs are like Malinois. If they want to get into something, they will; people have had their entire network compromised by bots they left running overnight, and any important information like account logins and so on runs the risk of being misused. It's one thing to sandbox, maybe give the bot a temporary, limited $100 card or account to go perform a specific task, but there's…
There was a thread recently where a user got his credentials pwned by Claude, and then Claude berated him for having bad security. He posted this to r/Claude, where Claude (as automoderator) mocked him again. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1r186gl/my_agent_...
All of this is caused by the "mcp is dead" mob. Instead of fixing the context problem or whatever and even add more security features they just hope that "shell as the interface" works, securely.
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#274NemoClaw is mostly a trojan horse of sorts to get corporate OpenClaw users quickly ported over to Nvidia's inference cloud. It's a neat piece of architecture - the OpenShell piece that does the security sandboxing. Gives a lot more granular control over exec and network egress calls. Docker doesn't provide this out of the box. But NemoClaw is pre-configured to intercept all OpenClaw LLM requests and proxy them to Nvi…
> the OpenShell piece that does the security sandboxing. Gives a lot more granular control over exec and network egress calls. Docker doesn't provide this out of the box.
I think the experimental Docker Ai Sandboxes do this as well: https://docs.docker.com/ai/sandboxes/ Plus free choice of inference model.
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#275Agents should be treated like users. Would you give another user you know is a bit careless, write access to your important documents and data? Probably not. I get it that people don't want to be bothered by "can i do this and that?" requests, but there's no other real solution.
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so there's overwhelming evidence that their public github history is accurate and Nemoclaw was written in a weekend, and the only reason to think it's not accurate is that... it's technically possible to edit git history, and also there's no reasonable explanation for why they would have edited git history they way they did. So... yeah, draw your own conclusion I guess, whatever.
Lmfao. This is how I know you have never worked at a big company before. I promise you every big company has processes around open sourcing things. It's not something that just whip up and release over a weekend. Just the legal approval would have taken months I have buddies at Nvidia. Their primary platform is not GitHub. Sorry you're so naive. Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two pri…
> Again, I ask you -- what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not?
Answer this question or we're done here, thanks.
> Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two prior. Then private repo. Approvals. Then public.
Source, other than you making it up?
> That's more plausible than the very normal practice of developing internally, scrubbing commits of any accidental whoopsies, vetting it and then putting it out publicly
Could you point to a specific commit you believe is a representation of an internal data transfer from a separate source control system which is not representative of work achievable within the time period represented by the differential between the commit time and the time of the prior commit?
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#277How does this compare the building your own bot that has access to these tools: - web plugin - api access to messaging - access to a job scheduler
This has been my approach and of course what you lose is the "random and surprising" (maybe good) but also the "evolutionary" aspect. So, if you write strong tooling (even with AI) around the connection points - you can create blackboxes tht are secure and only allow the agent to perform certain actions. The blackbox email service calls out to a secure store (for keys/etc) and accesses your emails in a read-only way,…
Thanks for sharing. This seems to me like a more useful approach than an agent that has full control over a computer
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lmfao. This is how I know you have never worked at a big company before. I promise you every big company has processes around open sourcing things. It's not something that just whip up and release over a weekend. Just the legal approval would have taken months I have buddies at Nvidia. Their primary platform is not GitHub. Sorry you're so naive. Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two pri…
> Again, I ask you -- what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not? Answer this question or we're done here, thanks. > Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two prior. Then private repo. Approvals. Then public. Source, other than you making it up? > That's more plausible than the very normal prac…
You cannot really be this naive but i'll play along:
> what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not?
Like i said. You are letting on that you have never actually worked on an internal project that is going to go open source. There are a million and one reasons. Here are some completely normal and plausible ones. It was worked on over weeks internally, commits referenced other internal NVIDIA software/libraries they used. It name dropped projects and code names. Maybe it was just an extremely long chain of messy commits that is improper to have on a potentially big open source repo. So here's what happens (since you clearly are unaware of how people operate in this world), you "unstage" everything and write canonical commits free of all the garbage. You squash, you merge, you set up standards, you leave a clean commit history. All of it very important for open source
> Source, other than you making it up?
Ah yes let me just go ping the people who worked on it. Lol. Source is my decade long experience working on similar projects where i literally did this scrubbing of commits. You have a circuitous argument "It was done in a weekend because the commits say so" is really quite the hill to die on
> Could you point to a specific commit you believe is a representation of an internal data transfer
If there was any indication left over of a "transfer", it wouldn't have done it's purpose would it? But if you really are looking for something, how about the fact that there's only one human contributor of the first few commits. Very odd, you would think a massive open sourcing of a project like this would probably involve a team right? Or do you believe AI tools have gotten that good that one engineer is just driving with Claude and open sourcing full launches?
Here, how about we just do some critical thinking. Nvidia setup a "Set up NemoClaw" booth at their GTC that was happening just a few days ago. Jensen had a full presentation for it and it was a big highlight.
Do you really think a company as big as Nvidia is hinging the release of a big announcement on the hope that ONE engineer is going to START working on it a few days before the announcement and ACTUALLY get it done to a point where they can talk about it on stage?
Please come on, no one can be this dense. You have to be trolling. Try another argument than "The commits say so". Just apply a basic level of understanding of how software is built and released
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Again, I ask you -- what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not? Answer this question or we're done here, thanks. > Almost certainly this was built in house for at least a month or two prior. Then private repo. Approvals. Then public. Source, other than you making it up? > That's more plausible than the very normal prac…
You cannot really be this naive but i'll play along: > what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not? Like i said. You are letting on that you have never actually worked on an internal project that is going to go open source. There are a million and one reasons. Here are some completely normal and plausible ones. It was wor…
I asksed you specific questions and you failed to answer all of them, I think that says everything. Thanks.
Re: Nvidia NemoClaw
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot really be this naive but i'll play along: > what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not? Like i said. You are letting on that you have never actually worked on an internal project that is going to go open source. There are a million and one reasons. Here are some completely normal and plausible ones. It was wor…
I asksed you specific questions and you failed to answer all of them, I think that says everything. Thanks.
Nice job proving you can't read either. I answered everything. Gave you some critical thinking homework and you didn't do it. Great job
"It's true because commit history says so" - mjr00 2026. Hall of fame comment really
Try answering my questions next:
1. Do you really believe a company like Nvidia would announce a project in their yearly conference when that project was done the weekend before?
2. Do you really believe ONE engineer wrote the entire project in one weekend with Claude
3. Do you really believe companies like Nvidia don't have internal private Github/Gitlab repos where they don't pre build projects like this?
Thanks. I'll wait. Sorry these won't have simple answers like "The commit history says so"