Claude Code refuses requests or charges extra if your commits mention "OpenClaw"

Post by hrimfaxi » Fri, May 01, 2026, 11:11 PM UTC

bs7280 wrote: post #711

hrimfaxi wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Openclaw is an always on AI assistant that's plugged into a bunch of MCPs. You don't understand what kinds of problems that can help solve and cant envision any use cases for that?

I think the important point in the parent comment is "Burning a shit ton of tokens". Openclaw was built fast and loose, making it use far too many tokens for trivial things. I'm confident the next Claw can and will be engineered to be at least 10x as token efficient and more reliable.

Post by kordlessagain » Sat, May 02, 2026, 2:16 AM UTC

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #348

petercooper wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if projects which are anti-AI could place such identifiers surreptitiously into docs or commits as a way to sabotage people using Claude Code. Your project isn't going to get many AI PRs if just cloning your project wiped out their quota.

There is no "if". They could. There's no separation between parts of the prompt. You sneak that text in, anywhere, and it'll work. Whether Anthropic is using a regex or some LLM to detect the mentions of OpenClaw doesn't even matter. > Your project isn't going to get many AI PRs if just cloning your project wiped out their quota. With how many projects automatically AI-review PRs, they're just sitting ducks. You don'…

Post by Chyzwar » Sat, May 02, 2026, 5:57 AM UTC

energy123 wrote: post #688

Chyzwar wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All SOTA model providers are losing money. When users run Opus, they are essentially renting a GPU cluster worth half a million dollars for a $100/$200 subscription. If they want to IPO, they need to show a projection toward profit. For that reason, they want to discourage power users and attract normies.

> All SOTA model providers are losing money. Source? I only read one article on this topic and they approximated gross margins at 50%. > When users run Opus, they are essentially renting a GPU cluster worth half a million dollars for a $100/$200 subscription. They use a large batch size, you're sharing the GPU with many other people.

Post by SeanAnderson » Sat, May 02, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #738

SeanAnderson wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My current job has me overseeing a few teams of engineers working on ~10+ y/o legacy software systems that have not been especially well maintained. As an example, one team had a completely broken CI pipeline due to numerous flaky tests. They had configured the CI pipeline to rerun tests multiple times and still the master branch had like.. a 40% pass rate. Super ugly, but the suite took ~40 minutes to run and they w…

> Uhm, we have an active interview pipeline where we give a take-home technical assessment. After we got a few submissions, and manually evaluated them, I fed our analyses in and our grading rubric and had it generate assessments for incoming candidates following the rubric. After checking a few pretty carefully it became clear that it was good enough to trust - the take home wasn't groundbreaking and the problem spa…

Post by subscribed » Sat, May 02, 2026, 6:48 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #121

subscribed wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's malicious and I think this is scamming from the literal money (you didn't do anything wrong, you executed one command and they scammed you out of the fair usage you paid for). Please raise the ticket or at least GitHub issue for visibility. Sooner or later some sort of complaint to the relevant trade authority should happen - this is a scam operation at this point.

There are many possible explanations for this outcome to have occurred other than malice. If you're an engineer by trade, consider how many bugs you've been responsible for over the course of your career that you didn't intend. Probably a lot. How about we turn down the heat, everyone?