[flagged]
How to solve the increasing frequency of AI generated posts on HN
It’s horrible. I got chewed up here for a similar reason… noting suspicious comments (same top level thread as this one): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47115805
Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
351–360 of 752 posts
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#352[flagged]
How to solve the increasing frequency of AI generated posts on HN
Wouldn't it be ironic if LLMs are what saves us all from our digital addictions? There's not much point in shit posting online if there's no confidence that the person you're talking to is even a person.
I mean over time I'd imagine they'll be able to tune away from the 'LLM style' chat making it even more ambiguous who is human and who is not, and at which point, I expect many of us might be forced to accept what a waste of time this all is, all the while bots 'chat' with one another.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
When reading HN I get the impression that a lot of people are convinced monthly plans are very profitable for the companies, I don’t have any numbers but to me it always seemed like a bait and switch or ”bait and make you pay with your data too”.
I'll bite. I suspect that these plans aren't as intensely subsidized as people assume. I believe that API usage is probably also not subsidized at all. First, yes, subs are probably subsided, but I bet a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations. Yes, I think the subs also exist as a driver to get lock-in and market…
> I'll bite. I suspect that these plans aren't as intensely subsidized as people assume. I believe that API usage is probably also not subsidized at all. First, yes, subs are probably subsided, but I bet a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations. Yes, I think the subs also exist as a driver to get lock-in and market share. Claude Code, for example, is very good and I stopped using their competition when they released their superior product.
I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree with this. I think API based is not subsidised. If you do some basic napkin math they should have enough room there to serve the models below cost if the models aren't insanely large (you can compare with 3rd party openrouter offerings and have an idea of what $/Mtok you can serve per model size. e.g. Haiku level models can be ~700B tokens and still be profitably served)
I think 20-200$ all-you-can-prompt are likely subsidised. If you track token usage (there are many 3rd party tools that do this) you can get 4-5x the API usage out of them (it used to be even higher before they added weekly limits. People were seeing 10-20x usage). Now I think that's a bit tough to make the napkin math work out. I've compared sessions served over API with sessions from subscriptions, and you get much more usage out of them, even with 5h / weekly limits. Strictly for coding, I think they're subsidising them.
I somewhat disagree that they're doing it for market share / user lock-in. I think signals and usage trends are much more valuable for them. While there might be user retention for "casual" users (i.e. web) I think the power users in coding will move as soon as the competition has a better product. So at the end of the day having data to improve models and have the "best" model in a niche is more productive than retaining users with an inferior product. That is an assumption tho, and there isn't much math you can do to figure that out from the outside.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#354[dead]
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#355How
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#356How!!!
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terms of Service that span multiple pages of legalese and require an attorney to parse, for something that is either 'free' or a few $ per month, and can result in loss of service across multiple product lines, AND has binding lopsided arbitration requirements, is not only draconian, it is unconscionable . Look at how messed up this is: Google Attorneys, paid hundreds of $/hour, spending hours and hours putting toget…
This is how I feel when reading my 100 page home owners insurance policy.
I'm beginning to think that the law needs to be that if there are such egregious terms of service, then the company needs to pay for the consumer's attorney at litigation, no matter the cause of litigation, and no matter the outcome.
I don't have a formal contract with my electricity and water provider; why should there be a dozen pages or longer contract for an email/ISP/Phone provider? Email, Internet, Phones are essential services. Insurance might fall into the same bucket in civilized nations.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
How to solve the increasing frequency of AI generated posts on HN
Wouldn't it be ironic if LLMs are what saves us all from our digital addictions? There's not much point in shit posting online if there's no confidence that the person you're talking to is even a person. I mean over time I'd imagine they'll be able to tune away from the 'LLM style' chat making it even more ambiguous who is human and who is not, and at which point, I expect many of us might be forced to accept what a…
It’s certainly a losing game. I’ve deleted most of my accounts these days. I think the future is just going to be people retreating in to instant messaging and small group chats where you have physically met the other people.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand step 1. OAuth client applications have to be registered in GCP, right? They have to request specific scopes for specific APIs, and there is a review process before they can be used by the public. Did none of that happen for the Open Claw client? How is it the users' fault for clicking a "Sign in with Google" button? And if there was a mistake, why not ban the whole client? I could see a problem wit…
To my understanding, OpenClaw pretends to be Antigravity by using the Antigravity OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw. When I first tried OpenClaw and chose Google Sign-In, I noticed the window appeared saying "Sign into Google Antigravity" with a Google official mark, and a warning it shouldn't be used to sign into anything besides offi…
Ah, ok. I guess there is no way for Google to prevent this since desktop apps are public clients that use PKCE.
I imagine Open Claw must also have registered the Antigravity custom URL scheme in order to receive the redirect.
Remaining question is how Google determines that traffic is not actually coming from Antigravity.
Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
claude -p is allowed as far as I'm aware. if i understand correctly, they even have a wrapper around it to make it easier to use: the Claude Agent SDK the thing that's disallowed is pretending you're the claude binary, logging in through OAuth in other words, if you use some product thats not Claude Code, and your browser opens asking you to "give Claude Code access to your account", you're in hot water as for how th…
The Claude Agent SDK is explicitly disallowed from subscription use, as of a few days ago.
No it's not. You can't offer OAuth + the Claude Agent SDK in your own product, but you can use Claude Agent SDK locally by signing in through Claude Code.
It's no different than using Claude Code directly.