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

661–670 of 752 posts

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

#661

Post by shimman »

gildenFish wrote: post #625
Aperocky wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they allowed oauth token to work like that then that is their (Google's) problem.

It is basically impossible to disallow the token to work that way on a technical level. It would be akin to trying to trying to set up a card scanner that can deny a valid card depending on who is holding it. The only way to prevent it from working is analyzing usage patterns/details/etc in some form or fashion. Similar to stationing a guard as a second check on people whose cards scan as valid.

So it sounds like the trillion dollar corporation can actually do it but they don't want to spend the money too because they are extremely cheap?

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

#663

Post by infecto »

ndriscoll wrote: post #645
infecto wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly that’s a detail far removed from the discussion. Folks are surprised they cannot use something that would obviously be against the T&Cs.

Everyone knows no one reads terms and that it isn't feasible for a normal person to do so, so I don't know why it would "obviously" be against them to anyone. If you're paying for a subscription with known limits, you'd expect you can use up to those limits. It's no more obvious to me than if you used the API token and got banned for using another client, or if a website decided to ban Firefox users.

I just fail to see your argument. You are paying for Claude code or Antigravity. Not for the raw underlying compute. It’s not about reading T&Cs but the expectation is just because you are paying for a service does not give you the right to freely use the API however you want. Hence why I said it really reminds me of a private vs public API. Don’t be surprised if you get shutout of the private API. All subscriptions are bound by acceptable use.

Maybe I am out of touch but I struggle why folks are surprised by this. I would argue that banning accounts is probably too harsh but we will see if that is a short term remedy.

There is a reason that in general the cost of a token via API is more expensive than when using the consumer tool.

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

#664

Post by neop1x »

paxys wrote: post #68

I don't know why people here can't accept the simple fact that AI companies are offering cheap "unlimited" plans as a loss leader to tie you to their ecosystem, and then make up for it via add-ons, upsells, ads etc. If you use those API tokens to access external services it defeats the purpose. The hack may have worked so far, mainly because no one was checking, but they are all going to tighten the access eventually…

Recent open-weights models(MiniMax, Kimi K2, GLM, Mistral) are also quite good, can be self-hosted or accessed through 3rd-party hosters or OpenRouter and they are sufficient for most of the tasks. Just stop paying overpriced "unlimited" subscription bul**hit.

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

#665

Post by ForHackernews »

pja wrote: post #637
ForHackernews wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You’re responsible for the things your AI agent does.

I'll be very surprised if our corporate masters allow that to be true, legally https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/622/

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

#666

Post by ForHackernews »

ddalex wrote: post #621
ForHackernews wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A human is not punished, the access of the robot to the API is restricted. The human has not suffered any damage.

The human paid money for access that has now been revoked.

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

#667

Post by tda »

mschuster91 wrote: post #644
saalweachter wrote: post #624

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…

> 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. It's the same with vulnerabilities in slot machines. Damn rare but they exist - in 2014, when I worked in that industry, one gang made a…

I fondly remember finding and exploiting a buggy slot machine on the night the Euro got introduced. A classmate (I never played slot machines) made some money but didn't understand what was going on. I observed and it became apparent (in my slightly intoxicated state) the machine would pay out 2 Euro coins where is should pay out 20 cents. And when playing a 1 Euro game, you would often "win" 80 cents. Pay-out immediately and you got 8 Euro. Of course after a few rounds, the 2 Euro coins ran out and it would do some RNG to pay out 1 Euro with 80% chance. Don't know if I tried feeding it back the 2 Euro coins, I recall just made enough to have a free new years eve

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

#668

Post by neop1x »

ingatorp wrote: post #434

It was already pretty restricted due to ludicrous rate limiting. I tried it just for fun with my Pro account and it was unusable. It couldn't do tasks properly without hitting rate limit, every other prompt.

From the start, I didn't understand why people pay so much for those subscriptions. Often, there are no clearly stated quotas, limits, or SLAs. For example, OpenAI states that requests are "limited" for the basic plan and "extended" for more expensive plans. It's such a joke.

I've been a pay-as-you-go API user from the beginning, carefully managing my context and usage while also leveraging cheaper, open alternatives to those overpriced "SOTA" models. I'm paying ~6 USD a month and I'm using it quite a lot.

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

#669

Post by NOBULEX »

This is exactly what happens when there's no accountability infrastructure for AI agents.

Google's response is to restrict access — a blunt instrument that punishes legitimate users because they have no way to verify which agents were behaving correctly and which weren't.

The real fix isn't restrictions, but cryptographic behavioral commitments — agents declare what they'll do before execution, and any third party can verify compliance after. We don't need gatekeepers. We need verification.

I've been building this: https://github.com/agbusiness195/NOBULEX

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

#670

Post by sowbug »

lelanthran wrote: post #460
sowbug wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facts are straightforward, even without analogies. But since we're using them... You are at the grocery store, checking out. The total comes to $250. You pay, but then remember you had a coupon. You present it to the cashier, who calls the manager over. The manager informed you that you've attempted to use an expired coupon, which is a violation of Paragraph 53 subsection d of their Terms of Service. They keep yo…

> They keep your groceries and your $250, and they ban you from the store. If you signed an agreement with the grocery store that says they will ban you with no refunds for doing $FOO, and you do $FOO, then you can't expect any sympathy when you get banned, now can you? In any case, your analogy is broken, because this is a monthly subscription , not a once-off purchase: when you pay for a month of subscription and t…

At least one person in the support thread paid for a year and appears to have had it all forfeited, not refunded. If you're OK with that, then I urge you to reconsider. There is a big difference between contract, civil, and criminal law. People who break contracts aren't criminals. Sprawling corporations do not need yet more power, beyond the might they already have, to act like private police forces.
Post reply on HN