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

521–530 of 752 posts

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

#521

Post by KronisLV »

xnx wrote: post #492

Additional information from Google employee https://x.com/_mohansolo/status/2025766889205739899 : "We’ve been seeing a massive increase in malicious usage of the Anitgravity backend that has tremendously degraded the quality of service for our users. We needed to find a path to quickly shut off access to these users that are not using the product as intended. We understand that a subset of these users were not aware…

> We understand that a subset of these users were not aware that this was against our ToS and will get a path for them to come back on but we have limited capacity and want to be fair to our actual users.

It feels like a good default for this would be something similar to video game bans: where you get a "vacation" from the service with a clear reason for why that is, but can return to using it later. Given how much people depend on cloud services, permanent bans for what could be honest mistakes or not knowing stuff would be insane.

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

#522

Post by beAbU »

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.

> Race to burn as much cash as possible in hopes that the other goes bankrupt first?

This has been standard in the VC playbook for the last decade or so. The only moat these companies have is the size of their war chests.

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

#523

Post by cyberax »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #505
cyberax wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you are saying a company should never reinvest profits in the company to support another money losing business until it’s profitable? If it makes it impossible to set up a competitor? Absolutely, yes. > Should Netflix for instance not invested money from renting DVDs to invest in a streaming service? Netflix was not priced below the cost of production from the beginning. You're confusing sustainable pricing and…

Netflix very much was priced below the cost of production for years and had to borrow money to make Netflix originals.

I'm not familiar with their originals economics, but the original streaming Netflix was not priced below the cost. As evidenced by them keeping the same subscription cost for years.

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

#524

Post by ayewo »

oofbey wrote: post #309
hsaliak wrote: post #245

Google's Pro service (no idea about ultra and I have no intention to find out) is riddled with 429s. They have generous quotas for sure, but they really give you very low priority. For example, I still dont have access to Gemini 3.1 from that endpoint. It's completely uncharacteristic of Google. I analyzed 6k HTTP requests on the Pro account, 23% of those were hit with 429s. (Though not from Gemini-CLI, but from my o…

I’ve often suspected these models of getting dumber when the service is under high load. But I’ve never seen actually measured results or proof. Anybody know of real published data here?

Here's a recent comment [1] by an OpenAI engineer confirming that they do in fact make such trade offs between intelligence and efficiency.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46909905

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

#525

Post by lukeschlather »

solatic wrote: post #435
lukeschlather wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is there's a definite shortage of GPUs, and if OpenAI is more reliable it's because they have fewer customers relative to the number of GPUs they have. I don't think Google is handing out 429s because they are worried about overspending; I think it's because they literally cannot serve the requests.

OpenAI is dependent on same hyperscalers (most specifically Microsoft/Azure) as everyone else, and even have access to preferential pricing due to their partnership. A better explanation is to point out that ChatGPT is still far and away the most popular AI product on the planet right now. When ChatGPT has so many more users, multi-tenant economic effects are stronger, taking advantage of a larger number of GPUs. Thi…

I would guess the biggest AI product on the planet is Google's Search AI. Although even that might not be the case, unless your definition of AI is just "LLMs" and not any sort of ML that requires a GPU.

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

#526

Post by user205738 »

bakugo wrote: post #83
poszlem wrote: post #34

Between this, and whatever Claude has been doing lately, like giving the AI the ability to just disconnect if it dislikes your prompt, I really hope more people realize that local LLMs are where it's at.

> I really hope more people realize that local LLMs are where it's at. Maybe if you have the tens of thousands worth of hardware required to run models like DeepSeek, GLM or Kimi locally. Most people don't, though.

Why do most people need large language models?

And as far as I understand, the main contingent of HN is engineers, programmers, and even me, who works in a country (Russia) where the salary of an engineer is just tiny compared to Europe or the United States, it was not difficult to buy powerful enough equipment to run most large local models, train lora, then programmers who earn income in six-digit dollars it's even easier to do this.

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

#527

Post by lelanthran »

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…

> I don't understand how this can be enforced without ridiculous levels of false positives.

It's embarrassingly trivial, IMO - compare what antigravity reports for token to what the backend reports for token usage for that user.

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

#528

Post by TrackerFF »

I was going to ask the other day, how long until people start getting banned left and right from the big services, after they start using / integrating openclaw? Seems like the other big issues, other than the security aspects. And knowing how kafkaesque it is to deal with companies like google, I don't hope the claw practitioners are too integrated with products from companies like google.

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

#530

Post by bobmcnamara »

vincston wrote: post #440
shevy-java wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, getting banned without warning is rough as well. Agreed. The lesson is: do not become dependent on Google. Ever. (Unfortunately I still use youtube and a chromium-based browser. Long-term I hope to find alternatives to both problems. Google search I no longer need because Google already ruined it a few years ago; the quality now is just horrible. I can not find anything useful with it anymore.)

What google search alternative have you found? Im trying out ecosia, duckduckgo and brave search, but i find their search results even worse, so in the second query i tend to bang to google..

Google Search is over. There may not be a free alternative, it they've lost the arms war between phone number incrementing ad pages, AI spew, and rank hackers.
Post reply on HN