591–600 of 752 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Did a human really knowingly decide to allow that? 2. Did a human create the plugin? 3. Are the maintainers human? By human I mean an animal that is intelligent enough to understand the agreements and what code they are writing.
Most people aren't human then, sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I posted an "Ask HN" around this a while back. I think we will see a lot more of it and we will be hurting legitimate users. I like your temp ban idea but I doubt they would give reasons why. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40784126
Because it'll be an LLM guided bot handing out bans, so no one will actually KNOW why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting your Google Workspace account nuked because an employee hooked their company Gemini account to OpenClaw would certainly be a novel business risk.
what you described is that using google is a novel business risk
This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…
Yikes!! This is really unfortunate, because Google's models seem very good but there's no way I'm using a google service for this kind of thing with those policies. I don't even want to run OpenClaw, but that's scary! Plus, I have my google account tied to authenticating so many things that if my account were to be suspended or something that would be a nightmare. I haven't tried Antigravity but I remember on release…
BTW, I tend to only use Google for services I pay for (YouTube+, APIs, Gemini Plus, sometimes GCP).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Why would WebChat users need a subscription? It's free; I've even pasted tarballs of entire repos in there, and haven't hit limits! >
More limited features, like lack of model selection, more restricted use of “thinking” models.
> More limited features, like lack of model selection, more restricted use of “thinking” models.
Yeah, but... do the "chat" users actually care about any of that? Would they even notice a difference?
My point is that, if all you're doing is chat, there's no value in any of the subscription models - for chat the free webapps are more than sufficient, so even someone spending the whole day chatting about something isn't going to hit any limits.
That is presumably the end game - monthly subscription in a walled garden app while they have your balls in a vice grip and can squeeze however many dollars you’ll bear I bet Google is thankful that anthropic took one for the team by going first. Also if it wasn’t for Chinese providers we’d basically already be in triopoly. Perplexity had a ban wave this weekend too
It would be fun if Google lost its months of edge in the LLM value race because it alienated early adopters paying $250/month by using a 0-strike system with no customer support.
Honestly, I think it was probably a few users abusing the system like crazy. I've been building with Gemini CLI the past few days and had an increasing amount of issues getting a request through. The GH issue trackers were full of people bitching and moaning about it. I think it might be a worse thing to alienate your users who use your product in the intended way - through Google's tooling. But I agree the 0 strike…
It's not unusual that 10% of users use up 80% of the capacity; first saw this when home internet started getting ubiquitous.
By dropping the problematic 10%, the remaining 90% are:
a. Much happier, and
b. Much more profitable for the provider.
Resulting in a sustainable service for those who don't abuse the hell out o the ToS/FUP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m aware of the tweet that says otherwise, but until they update their legal documentation, it’s still not allowed. > OAuth authentication (used with Free, Pro, and Max plans) is intended exclusively for Claude Code and Claude.ai. Using OAuth tokens obtained through Claude Free, Pro, or Max accounts in any other product, tool, or service — including the Agent SDK — is not permitted and constitutes a violation of the…
It's not about a tweet, just read your own quote. You cannot authenticate with anything but Claude Code and Claude.ai. But you do not need to authenticate with Claude Agent SDK (even though you can using env variables). When you authenticate with Claude Code (allowed), Claude Agent SDK works without any further authentication. It's really annoying that people keep trying to make this complicated because the inevitabl…
This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…
This is the first time in recent memory that software has had high variable costs so the surprise at these rules is understandable. In this case, a the difference in context cache hit rate between openclaw and antigravity. For example if openclaw starts every message with the current time hh:mm:ss at the top of the context window, followed by the full convo history, it would have a cache hit rate if ~0. Simply moving…
Running software has always had a variable cost.
Why should I be surprised if [cloud provider] were upset that I were running a thousand free tier servers? Or utilizing any paid plan at all to somehow effect utilizations far exceeding the clearly documented limitations of my plan?
Using the torrent network protocol on a VPN that doesn't support it, or fork bombing an email server, or using that one popular free video hosting service to host nigh unlimitted arbritrary data, or hosting content that is illegal to the server operator regardless of its legality to me, etc, etc, etc
It's all the same thing: TOS violation.
No one is being forced to use these products without reading and signing the terms of service. In this particular instance, you can even use the free version of the provided service to analyze the terms of service for the paid plan if you were really so lazy.
I really am genuinely confounded as to why people are so regularly surprised that they can't just do whatever they please with proprietary solutions. Like "oh what do you mean I can't lie about the date of my injury in order to get it covered by insurance?".
It's almost like people just assume that everything ever works exactly as they would deam it to (in their benefit), rather than the much more sane assumption that every company is going to be naturally inclined to cater to their own benefit before the users'.