Live data from Hacker News

Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

discuss.ai.google.dev

551–560 of 752 posts

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

#551
post #330

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.

This sounds very plausible. OpenAI has hoarded 40% of world's RAM supply, which they likely have no use for other than to starve competition. They (or other competitors) could be utilizing the same strategy for other hardware. Which is worrying, because if this continues, and if Google, who has GCP is struggling to serve requests, there's no telling what's going to happen with services like Hetzner etc.

https://docs.hetzner.com/general/infrastructure-and-availabi... price increases

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

#552
post #65
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friendly reminder that Google Takeout [1] exists. When I read a story a few years ago about a guy who had his primary Google account banned with no recourse (for reselling Pixel phones) and permanently lost 20 years worth of emails and family photos, I researched and found Takeout and used it to back up all my data, then subsequently stopped using Google services altogether (apart from YouTube). [1] https://takeout.g…

That doesn't solve all issues, such as services you have signed up to using your Gmail account.

Services generally allow changing your email address. Otherwise, it’s one more reason to use your own email domain.

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

#553
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…

Getting your Google Workspace account nuked because an employee hooked their company Gemini account to OpenClaw would certainly be a novel business risk.

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

#554

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.

>OpenAI and the Chinese companies let you all you can eat openly. You say this, but I guarantee that when they do offer a plan similar to Google/Anthropic's dedicated coding "unlimited" subscription, they will do the exact same thing. Maybe they will let OpenClaw in as a first party because of their partnership with the creator.

Where does Anthropic offer an "unlimited" subscription? All of the plans mentioned on https://claude.com/pricing have limits, same as usage of Codex on OpenAI's ChatGPT subscription plans. If Google forgot to actually enforce a rate limit (that they do mention on https://antigravity.google/pricing) on theirs, that sounds like a huge oversight.

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

#555

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.)

Literally just use Firefox.

Firefox is financed by Google and makes them survive (but yes, clearly the only realistic alternative that is not Chromium-based)

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

#556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a large company, that can dominate the market by absorbing the losses until competition disappears? Arguably, yes.

The question is over what timescale and volume. Toyota shouldn't have to sell their first new car off the line for 100 million to pay for the entire manufacturing line. Your first SAAS customer shouldn't have to pay back all your costs. Can you plan to break even after your first month of sales? first year? 10 years?

So we are going to pass a law that any new company initiative must be profitable in $x years? Are we going to outlaw loss leaders?

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

#557
post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

I've been using ddg for years now, and it's heen probably 2 years since I needed to use the "!g" escape hatch. Very very happy with it.

Agree. Historically you would just not get any good results for a search and try Google, but these days it's more likely there just aren't any good results for your search period, regardless of engine. Funny enough that's when I've had better results asking chatgpt or similar because I'm typically after some sort of consensus or summary in those situations.

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

#558

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…

>>it amazes me that the maintainer(s) allowed something like this...

Really? In today's landscape this is the part that surprises you? I'm seeing these types of decisions repeatedly and typically my only question is do they not know any better, or intentionally not care?

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

#559

So the timeline is basically * User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw * user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning * user still gets charged If you go backwards, getting charged for services you can't access is rough. I feel sorry for those who are deeply integrated into Google services or getting banned on their main accounts. It's not a great situation. Also, getting banned without…

[dead]

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

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus spake the Googler... sorry, but I think I understand it just fine, I think it is you that is not understanding it properly but since your salary depends on not understanding it properly I won't blame you for that.

I'll be more explicit, > google would be tracking who people's partners are is a misunderstanding of that comment. Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are. You're welcome to have whatever opinions you are about companies, but I'd also hope that you're careful not to read conspiracies into places where they aren't stated, especially in about institutions you have preconceptions abou…

That is exactly what that comment implies.

Whether it is tracked explicitly or implicitly, the idea that there is a matrix that establishes your linkage to other accounts is the bit that I take issue with because the conclusion for me is that Google is able to infer things about the people they hold data on that they never ever should have access to.

If you have a credible alternative explanation of what it does mean then you are welcome to supply that but instead you are making statements that are unverifiable:

> Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are.

That's a very, very thin line because if Google can figure out which account to ban and which account to let live because they are close enough that without that matrix the two would be seen as the same entity then that's already many levels of privacy violation too far. Being able to derive who is partner with whom once you have that data is trivial, whether Google actually does this or not is irrelevant because you can't prove a negative.

You are well into the territory of defending the indefensible here and I'm giving you a lot of leeway because you most likely have a mortgage and a bunch of other responsibilities but effectively you are defending your employer from a claim of gathering data without consent. Which - as I probably don't need to remind you - is a massive violation of privacy.

This all revolves around implied ability, I don't give a rats ass about whether or not there is an actual implementation of that ability - as it seems you do -, Google should not have this capability because I did not consent to its tracking of the relationships of my accounts vis-a-vis other accounts. Legal basis for data processing and informed consent are both staples of privacy law.

I know that both of these, but especially consent are difficult topics for Google, they seem to approach these things from a 'we can therefore we will' angle and that has resulted time and again in them being found on the wrong side of the lines of ethics and legality. This is just one more little nail in that particular coffin.

Post reply on HN