621–630 of 752 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consequences for Google are that the people are misusing the keys and the Google is fixing that. They're not banning anybody using proper API keys
[flagged]
People seem to be continuously outraged by these AI subscriptions banning third party use. However, the usage patterns of the intended apps likely differ hugely from those of the third party ones. For example, basically every first party agent harness aggressively caches the input tokens to optimise inference, something that third party harnesses often disgregard, or are fundamentally incompatible with as they switch…
For example the EU DNA (entirely not enough but in the right direction).
We should have the right to use our accounts as we wish.
It's the right-to-repair applied to software.
Abuse is something else entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activity and the main author bragged about not even reading the code himself. It was all heavily AI driven and moving at an extreme rate. Everyone was competing to get their commits in because they wanted to be a part of it. The entire project was a fast and furious…
That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?
Not really. There’s a difference between accelerating development in the hands of an experienced developer versus having somebody just slop code by hoping for the best.
Adopting AI doesn’t equal removing code review. These were two separate choices combined.
Like, a corporation had a weakness you could exploit to get free/cheap thing. Fair game.
Then someone shares the exploit with a bunch of script kiddies, they exploit it to the Nth degree, and the company immediately notices and shuts everyone down.
Like, my dudes, what did you think was going to happen?
You treasure these little tricks, use them cautiously, and only share them sparingly. They can last for years if you carefully fly under the radar, before they're fixed by accident when another system is changed. THEN you share tales of your exploits for fame and internet points.
And instead, you integrate your exploit into hip new thing, share it at scale, write blog posts and short form video content about it, basically launch a DDoS against the service you're exploiting, and then are shocked when the exploit gets patched and whine about your free thing getting taken away?
Like, what did you expect was going to happen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their "API" isn't what's being accessed here. As far as I understand it's using their subscription account oauth token in some third party app that's the issue here.
If they allowed oauth token to work like that then that is their (Google's) problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
So purely from a hacker perspective, I'm amused at the whining . Like, a corporation had a weakness you could exploit to get free/cheap thing. Fair game. Then someone shares the exploit with a bunch of script kiddies, they exploit it to the Nth degree, and the company immediately notices and shuts everyone down. Like, my dudes, what did you think was going to happen? You treasure these little tricks, use them cautiou…
So purely from a hacker perspective, I'm amused at the whining . Like, a corporation had a weakness you could exploit to get free/cheap thing. Fair game. Then someone shares the exploit with a bunch of script kiddies, they exploit it to the Nth degree, and the company immediately notices and shuts everyone down. Like, my dudes, what did you think was going to happen? You treasure these little tricks, use them cautiou…
> Like, a corporation had a weakness you could exploit to get free/cheap thing. Fair game.
From a pure hacker perspective, I'm surprised there are people calling a legitimate usage a "weakness you could exploit"?
What weakness? What exploit? People have been using it in a way that was technically possible. And they paid for it, many purchased the product specifically because of it.
Then Google unilaterally changed the TOS of a product people already purchased and started pulling the rug. And again, there are people who call themselves hackers who approve of that? Even worse, they call people calling out Google for their monopolistic behavior whining.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47073097
I'd like to add, that's "priceless" for "them" and not for you.
It looks like its been found. The irony is, these model providers are now saying : "not like that!"