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

681–690 of 752 posts

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

#681

Post by ValentineC »

int_19h wrote: post #577
lelanthran wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dunno, it seems like way more cost effective to use the first party tools but I'm not sure why they really want that. Are the third party tools just really inefficient with API usage or something? No, the first party tools, even if they used the same number of tokens , gives them valuable data for their training. Essentially, the first party tools are subsidised because it saves them money on gathering even more…

Whether the tool is first-party or third-party, they still see the entirety of the prompt, which is where the valuable training data is.

For concerned customers, it'll probably be a better idea to run the models hosted in Amazon Bedrock or Google Vertex.

I'm surprised that Anthropic's price is the same as their licensees.

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

#682

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

tovej wrote: post #608
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that “evidence” of anything? The “evidence” that they were charging less for subscriptions than it cost to run the streaming service is that they were borrowing billions of dollars to both license content and create new content over the course of years. Netflix borrowed $16 billion over a decades https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/business/netflix-earnings... Because subscriptions didn’t make enough money to f…

Yes. They were. The US just hasn't enforced antitrust laws in decades.

So now a business shouldn’t be able to borrow money either to start a new initiative? Should they have instead charged customers enough from day one to fund growth? So the first 1000 or so customers should have been charged enough so they could spend an extra $16 Billion?

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

#683

Post by quantum_magpie »

ludjer wrote: post #394
jacquesm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is that the discounted rate exists in the first place. Essentially these are unfair business practices, product cross subsidization to ensure market dominance. See also: Microsoft and a whole bunch of other companies. And once they've got their monopoly position there is inevitably the rug-pull. I wonder if some CPO somewhere actually had the guts to put a 'rug pull' item on the product roadmap.

Its called economies of scale. When they server 200000 ai subscriptions they dont expect everyone to use the max. They expect some will use more and some will use less and at the end of the day it will even out. Thats how every service works that is for the masses. As soon as you want a guaranteed 1000 tokens you should pay for that.

If I pay for a subscription that guarantees 1000 tokens, I am paying for guaranteed 1000 tokens.

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

#684

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

tovej wrote: post #606
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So exactly what’s the difference between “predatory pricing” and pricing to gain customers and market share? Should Sony have to sell the first PlayStation off the line at $2000 (making up a number) so it can sell it at a marginal profit from day one or should it sell it below cost knowing that that over its lifetime if it stays at that price, it will both gain customers and sell at a profit in year 4 as the price of…

The EU uses an effects-based model. If below-cost prices are driving other actors out of business or has other anti-competitive effects, it is predatory pricing.

Reason #1642 that the technology industry in the EU sucks…

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

#685

Post by qingcharles »

KronisLV wrote: post #521
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…

I wish all the social media services would implement some sort of "vacation" bans instead of outright perma-banning you, when more oft-than-not the ban is a mistake caused by AI. I'd be less mad about some arbitrary nonsense ban if it was only a week.

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

#686

Post by lurkshark »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #498
lurkshark wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like a lot of this would go away if they made a different API for the “only for use with our client” subscriptions. A different API from the generic one, that moved some of their client behaviors up to the server seems like it would solve all this. People would still reverse engineer to use it in other tools but it would be less useful (due to the forced scaffolding instead of entirely generic completions API)…

> I feel like a lot of this would go away if they made a different API for the “only for use with our client” subscriptions. They literally did exactly that . That's what being cut off (Antigravity access, i.e. private "only for use with our client" subscription - not the whole account, btw.) for people who do "reverse engineer to use it in other tools". Nothing here is new or surprising, the problem has been the sam…

What I was getting at is that the current API is still a generic inference endpoint, but with OAuth instead of an API key. What I'm suggesting is that they move some of the client logic up to the OAuth endpoint so it's no longer a generic inference endpoint (e.g. system prompt is static, context management is done on the server, etc). I assume they can get it to a point that it's no longer useful for a general purpose client like OpenClaw

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

#687

Post by quantum_magpie »

renewiltord wrote: post #425
kuboble wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bad analogy. For one - smoking does very high permanent damage to a car interior. Two - the usage pattern was Shaun's toc but not obviously against the spirit. More like "you can use my car to drive around as much as you want" And then going: Obviously I didn't mean driving to another coast on a highway

More like "you can use my car to drive around as much as you want so long as you don't drive to another coast on a highway" and then you drive to another coast on a highway and get mad when I won't give you my car next time.

No, it’s more like you have 10k km to drive in this car.

And then, after you actually drive it for 10k km on “unauthorized” highways, they ban you.

That’s why analogies are for fucking idiots. There is a true example — you bought access to use your account for n tokens, and google got pissy that you didn’t use the tokens in their spyware ecosystem.

For you analogy loving fucks, it’s like the arcades selling their proprietary 50 cent worth token coins, that only works on their machines, when they could just accept 50 cent coins.

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

#688

Post by Aperocky »

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.

Exactly, so charge on usage or cap on usage.

Either the token works for all times, or works until it doesn't, or does not work at all.

Punishing the account for using a token you have vended for the exact same purpose is extremely poor product design.

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

#689

Post by tovej »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #684
tovej wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU uses an effects-based model. If below-cost prices are driving other actors out of business or has other anti-competitive effects, it is predatory pricing.

Reason #1642 that the technology industry in the EU sucks…

This is not it. This is reason #1 that the tech industry in the US is so dystopian.

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

#690

Post by lukeschlather »

gck1 wrote: post #330
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.

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.

> OpenAI has hoarded 40% of world's RAM supply

I believe OpenAI's purchasing is somewhat overstated, it definitely has no effect on Google's current ability to serve Gemini requests, but it is obvious that there's a shortage of most components, and it's also obvious that even internally Google is having to make hard choices about who to let use GPUs when.

I definitely think OpenAI likely has less use for GPUs than Google. Google has $300B in annual revenue vs. $20B for OpenAI. Even if you assume 100% of OpenAI's revenue is going to renting GPUs and they are taking a 50% loss there's still a lot of room for Google to be profitable and spending more money on GPUs, and not have enough GPUs. Google also just has a wider variety of models to train and run, from Waymo to Search to whatever advertising models.

Post reply on HN