501–510 of 760 posts
Who remembers the Google of Eric Schmidt and "Don't Be Evil"? The truth is that it doesn't matter what companies say, what they claim, what they do, and what their CEO says/claims/does. It's just a matter of time until the shareholders will get the right CEO to maximize shareholder value . People in the comments who want a statement or a "reorientation" or a commitment from Anthropic leadership are missing the princi…
Not in capitalism, indeed.
That is a huge red-flag. While I understand that they will do some policing/censoring, this is way beyond what I would consider acceptable. They can have a different price plan for agentic stuff, but these things where they “accidentally” whoops match on specific keywords and trigger extra usage charges is giving a evil-microsoft-vibe
This is fascinating because it makes me think OpenClaw is something of a trojan horse aimed at draining Anthropic's resources. For them to go to this length to stop OpenClaw usage raises some interesting questions and a precedent for closed model vendors.
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%
Why not simply git commit -m "openclaw" but this JSON thing?
A lot of the comments here are reacting to the censorship aspect, which is obviously an important point. But the more interesting subtext to me is that I feel like this gives insight into the situation within the company. I'm assuming they wouldn't do something like this unless the recent load issues (mostly driven by OpenClaw usage) were seen as an existential threat. So I'm guessing that's how the leadership views…
> The irony of course is that the way they've gone about reacting to this has damaged their brand so badly at the trust level that the public view of their company has completely flipped. No one at my company gives a single shit about Openclaw, so this whole situation has been a noop for a lot more of the public than you seem to think. Also, "censorship"? How is disallowing a specific tool that abuses a subscription…
This week the characters are "OpenClaw". I won't even try to guess what might lead to erroneous billing next week.
A lot of the comments here are reacting to the censorship aspect, which is obviously an important point. But the more interesting subtext to me is that I feel like this gives insight into the situation within the company. I'm assuming they wouldn't do something like this unless the recent load issues (mostly driven by OpenClaw usage) were seen as an existential threat. So I'm guessing that's how the leadership views…
I wouldn't be so sure. Don't overestimate people competence.
For me it all looked like picking the highest ROI item in attempt to fix their reliability without putting too much thought how to do it gracefully. So they just hacked it and we see the results
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the GP is calling contributor guideline restrictions a form of DRM. I think the GP is focusing on: > I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own? ... But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile If I clone an open source git repository, I should be free to point an LLM to review it in any way I choose. I can't contribute code back, but g…
I mean if you already have a local fork you can easily delete the magic boobytrap string and then let the llm roam free.
Who remembers the Google of Eric Schmidt and "Don't Be Evil"? The truth is that it doesn't matter what companies say, what they claim, what they do, and what their CEO says/claims/does. It's just a matter of time until the shareholders will get the right CEO to maximize shareholder value . People in the comments who want a statement or a "reorientation" or a commitment from Anthropic leadership are missing the princi…
Usually neither shareholders nor users are willing to pay the price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "if". They could. There's no separation between parts of the prompt. You sneak that text in, anywhere, and it'll work. Whether Anthropic is using a regex or some LLM to detect the mentions of OpenClaw doesn't even matter. > Your project isn't going to get many AI PRs if just cloning your project wiped out their quota. With how many projects automatically AI-review PRs, they're just sitting ducks. You don'…
You don't even need to put it in a project, put it in all your blog posts as invisible (white font white background) text, and if Claude winds up reading your website as part of a research task, you basically bricked someone's Claude session. Why is it amateur hour at Anthropic lately?
I am almost 40, and I have seen the same pattern play out several times now, it’s always the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are contributor guidelines that must be followed also no different from DRM in your view? Plenty of projects have those.
I don't think the GP is calling contributor guideline restrictions a form of DRM. I think the GP is focusing on: > I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own? ... But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile If I clone an open source git repository, I should be free to point an LLM to review it in any way I choose. I can't contribute code back, but g…