Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

discuss.ai.google.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 752 posts

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#411

Post by lurkshark »

mirashii wrote: post #202
mvdtnz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you mean by this? What cache?

Generally speaking, there's prompt caching that can be enabled in the API with things like this: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt... For a specific harness, they've all found ways to optimize to get higher cache hit rates with their harness. Common system prompts and all, and more and more users hitting cache really makes the cost of inference go down dramatically. What bothers me about a…

I feel like a lot of this would go away if they made a different API for the “only for use with our client” subscriptions. A different API from the generic one, that moved some of their client behaviors up to the server seems like it would solve all this. People would still reverse engineer to use it in other tools but it would be less useful (due to the forced scaffolding instead of entirely generic completions API) and also ease the burden on their inference compute.

I’m sure they went with reusing the generic completions API to iterate faster and make it easier to support both subscription and pay-per-token users in the same client, but it feels like they’re burning trust/goodwill when a technical solution could at least be attempted.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#412

Post by coffe2mug »

integralpilot wrote: post #342
anon84873628 wrote: post #334

Earlier 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…

> OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw.

Still surprised.

Client ID ok.

But openclaw needs the secret also?

Does it also mean Antigravity did not restrict to specific applications?

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#413

Post by zb1plus »

This is such a braindead move. Western AI companies short-term greed will just let Chinese companies win. If I were google, I'd just throttle or release a heavily cached version of their API for OpenClaw and automatically detect and direct openclaw usage to this model. Personally, Anthropic and Google's recent moves are just making me go all-in on self-hosted AI.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#414

Post by andersmurphy »

googinsider123 wrote: post #324
gck1 wrote: post #149

I don't understand how this can be enforced without ridiculous levels of false positives. I'm truly baffled. The same with Claude Code situation. gemini-cli, claude-code, codex etc, they ALL have a -p flag or equivalent, which is non-interactive IO interface for their LLM inference. If I wire my tooling (or openclaw) to use the -p flag (or equivalents), is that allowed? Okay, maybe they get rid of the -p flag and I h…

Haha, no. I can tell you that it is so obvious and there is basically no false positives. Can’t share more details though. If it makes you feel any better, some google employees have their personal accounts banned too (only Gemini access, not the whole account) for running opeclaw, and also have a hard time getting their account reinstated.

Its obvious why this us getting blocked open claw will make multiple orders if magnitude more requests. For each open claw user you could support tens of thousands of regular users.

The financial costs would clearly be ruinous.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#415

Post by kuboble »

renewiltord wrote: post #381
jacquesm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the reason companies are doing this because they're offering tokens at a discount, provided they're spent through their tooling? Then maybe they should charge for that instead of banning accounts? Google decided on their own business plan without any guns to their backs. If they decide to create a plan that is subsidized that's entirely on them.

If I say “you can use my car for $250/month if you don’t smoke in it” and then you pay me that money and you drive around until one day you smoke in it, I’m not going to let you smoke in my car. I told you not to smoke in it and you smoked in it. That’s the deal. All seems fine to me tbh.

I think it's a bad analogy. For one - smoking does very high permanent damage to a car interior.

Two - the usage pattern was Shaun's toc but not obviously against the spirit.

More like "you can use my car to drive around as much as you want" And then going: Obviously I didn't mean driving to another coast on a highway

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#416

Post by andersmurphy »

javascriptfan69 wrote: post #137
CuriouslyC wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI and the Chinese companies let you all you can eat openly. Anthropic's lead vs OAI is slight and these things are going to homogenize quickly. The market is going open and the people trying to keep it closed are just generating ill will pointlessly.

So what are they supposed to do? Race to burn as much cash as possible in hopes that the other goes bankrupt first? These models aren't profitable at the fixed subscription tiers.

That is the plan yes.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#417

Post by danpalmer »

coffe2mug wrote: post #412
integralpilot wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> OAuth client ID (and doesn't have its own), and then the takes the token Google returns to instead use with OpenClaw. Still surprised. Client ID ok. But openclaw needs the secret also? Does it also mean Antigravity did not restrict to specific applications?

Antigravity runs on your machine, the secret is there for the taking.

This is true of all OAuth client logins in this way, it's why the secret doesn't mean the same thing as it does with server to server login, you can never fully trust the client.

OAuth impersonation is nothing new, it's a well known attack vector that can't really be worked around (without changing the UX), the solution is instead terms of service, policies, and enforcement.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#418

Post by meling »

sowbug wrote: post #290
sigmar wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point wasn't an analogy. the facts are that it is a private api being used with a subscription service. neither hbo nor google are required to do business with people that abuse the api.

We are in violent agreement about that point. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think they're entitled to also keep the customer's annual subscription payment when they've decided they want out of the contract.

What happens if the customer ask his credit card company to do a chargeback?

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#419

Post by chii »

causal wrote: post #266
hatsix wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google wants usage that earns them street cred, not usage from bots who will never evaluate the output. They're all fighting tooth and nail to acquire customers, both free and paid... they didn't want their giveaways to be burned.

But banning accounts wholesale is not going to earn them more customers. They could have just disabled Gemini access, or even given a warning first. I don't use OpenClaw, I do pay hundreds per month for AI subscriptions, and I will not be giving that money to Google while they treat their customers like this.

> But banning accounts wholesale is not going to earn them more customers.

it has the chilling effect - people getting banned by google might imagine their entire google account getting banned (whether that's true or not is irrelevant).

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#420

Post by danny_codes »

paxys wrote: post #68

I don't know why people here can't accept the simple fact that AI companies are offering cheap "unlimited" plans as a loss leader to tie you to their ecosystem, and then make up for it via add-ons, upsells, ads etc. If you use those API tokens to access external services it defeats the purpose. The hack may have worked so far, mainly because no one was checking, but they are all going to tighten the access eventually…

Seems like a hassle when open source models are just as good. Can go with any hosting provider. Might have to wait 3-4 weeks for them to duplicate whatever Anthropic is doing with token caching. But then you get 10x cheaper inference.

I feel like this game is just a hot potato, can you get retail to hold the bag game

Post reply on HN