> But of course writing code directly will always maintain the benefit of specificity. If you want to write instructions to a computer that are completely unambiguous, code will always be more useful than English.
Unless the defect rate for humans is greater than LLMs at some point. A lot of claims are being made about hallucinations that seem to ignore that all software is extremely buggy. I can't use my phone without encountering a few bugs every day.
Yeah, I don't really accept the argument that AI makes mistakes and therefore cannot be trusted to write production code (in general, at least - obviously depends on the types of mistakes, which code, etc.).
The reality is we have built complex organizational structures around the fact that humans also make mistakes, and there's no real reason you can't use the same structures for AI. You have someone write the code, then someone does code review, then someone QAs it.
Even after it goes out to production, you have a customer support team and a process for them to file bug tickets. You have customer success managers to smooth over the relationships with things go wrong. In really bad cases, you've got the CEO getting on a plane to go take the important customer out for drinks.
I've worked at startups that made a conscious decision to choose speed of development over quality. Whether or not it was the right decision is arguable, but the reality is they did so knowing that meant customers would encounter bugs. A couple of those startups are valuable at multiple billions of dollars now. Bugs just aren't the end of the world (again, most cases - I worked on B2B SaaS, not medical devices or what have you).
This is broadly true, but not comparable when you get into any detail. The mistakes current frontier models make are more frequent, more confident, less predictable, and much less consistent than mistakes from any human I'd work with.
IME, all of the QA measures you mention are more difficult and less reliable than understanding things properly and writing correct code from the beginning. For critical production systems, mediocre code has significant negative value to me compared to a fresh start.
There are plenty of net-positive uses for AI. Throwaway prototyping, certain boilerplate migration tasks, or anything that you can easily add automated deterministic checks for that fully covers all of the behavior you care about. Most production systems are complicated enough that those QA techniques are insufficient to determine the code has the properties you need.
> The mistakes current frontier models make are more frequent, more confident, less predictable, and much less consistent than mistakes from any human I'd work with.
my experience literal 180 degrees from this statement. and you don’t normally get the choose humans you work with, some you may be involved in the interview process but that doesn’t tell you much. I have seen so much human-written code in my career that, in the right hands, I’ll take (especially latest frontier) LLM written code over average human code any day of the week and twice on Sunday
Humans also make mistakes, but unlike LLMs, they are capable of learning from their mistake and will not repeat it once they have learned. That, not the capacity to make mistakes, is why you should not allow LLMs to do things.
most human bugs are caused by failures in reasoning though, not by just making something up to leap to the conclusion considered most probable, so not sure if the comparison makes sense.
sorry, that is just taken from my experience, and perhaps I am considering reasoning to be a broader category than others might.
To be lenient I will separate out bugs caused by insufficient knowledge as not being failures in reasoning, do you have forms of bugs that you think are more common and are not arguably failures in reasoning that should be considered?
on edit: insufficient knowledge that I might not expect a competent developer to have is not a failure in reasoning, but a bug caused by insufficient knowledge that I would expect a competent developer in the problem space to have is a failure in reasoning, in my opinion on things.
Secure installation isn't the main problem with OpenClaw. This project doesn't seem to be solving a real problem. Of course the real problem is giving an LLM access to everything and hoping for the best.
OpenClaw can be useful, in theory, unlike rolling coal. OpenClaw is what people always hoped Siri, Alexa and/or Google Assistant would be, and now it's really here. It may be expensive, has a chance to become your local Skynet and might randomly delete or leak everything that's valuable for you..but I guess this counts as growing pains.
I'm trying to put together what you could possibly mean by this -- rolling coal is fundamentally about spite. In isolation, nobody _wants_ their vehicle to spew black smoke. It only comes close to making sense in the context of another population (EV owners, typically, or more generally "the libs").
OpenClaw lets people live a bit dangerously, but fundamentally gives them something that they actually wanted. They wanted it so badly that they're willing to take what seem like insane risks to get it.
> OpenClaw lets people live a bit dangerously, but fundamentally gives them something that they actually wanted. They wanted it so badly that they're willing to take what seem like insane risks to get it.
For the first time in my career I feel so incredibly behind on this: What is open claw giving people that they want so badly? It just seems like Russian Roulette, I honestly don't see the upside
I can give you, as an example, what is driving me towards trying it.
I work as a contractor for 2 companies, not out of necessity, but greed. I also have a personal project with a friend that is dangerously close to becoming a business that needs attention. I also have other responsibilities and believe it or not - friends. Also the ADHD on top of that.
I yearn for a personal assistant. Something or somebody that will read the latest ticket assigned to me, the email with project feedback, the message from my best friend that I haven't replied for the last 3 days and remind me: "you should do this, it's going to take 5 minutes", "you have to do this today, because tomorrow you are swamped" or "you should probably start X by doing Y".
I have tried so many systems of managing my schedule and I can never stick with it. I have a feeling that having a bot "reach out", but also be able to do "reasoning" over my pending things would be a game changer.
But yes, the russian roulette part is holding me back. I am taking suggestions though
My hope would be that since openclaw is communicating with me to my personal device, where I have all noise filtered, it would be a bit better.
I also know it can integrate with TickTick, which has been a huge change for me with task management. Then again - in my experience whatever tool I use to keep track of stuff only works for as long as it's a novelty, but 3 months is a record anyway.
The thing is - when I receive a message and I'm not in the headspace to answer, I close the notification and forget about it. My expectation would be openclaw reminding me that I still haven't replied to this person about that thing.
Obviously, there's a million ways to do it that don't require openclaw. Obviously there's a million things that I won't be able to grant openclaw access to (e.g. company jira or slack). And obviously, I don't want it evaluating every single of my personal messages. But I think there is a reasonable middle ground where it can work well. But I don't yet know how to reach it
Like with any new tool/technology, you have to try it. And even then the benefits won't be obvious to you until you've played with it for a few days/weeks. With LLMs in general, it took me months before I found real good use cases.
Simple example: I tell (with my voice) my OpenClaw instance to monitor a given web site daily and ping me whenever a key piece of information shows up there.
The real problem is that it is fairly unreliable. It would often ping me even when the information had not shown up.
Another example: I'm particular about the weather related information I want, and so far have not found any app that has everything. I got sick of going to a particular web site, clicking on things, to get this information. So I created a Skill to get what I need, and now I just ask for it (verbally), and I get it.
As the GP said. This is what Siri etc should have been.
> Simple example: I tell (with my voice) my OpenClaw instance to monitor a given web site daily and ping me whenever a key piece of information shows up there.
Maybe i'm just old -- a cron job can fetch the info and push it to some notification service too, without also being a chaos agent. It seems I spend the security cost here, and in return i can save 15 minutes writing a script. Juice doesn't seem to be worth the squeeze.
But they don't just want the text of the website pushed as a notification every day. They want the bot to load the site, likely perform some kind of interaction, decide if the thing they're looking for is there, and then notify them.
> Maybe i'm just old -- a cron job can fetch the info and push it to some notification service too, without also being a chaos agent.
Here's a concrete example: A web site showing after school activities for my kid's school. All the current ones end in March, and we were notified to keep a lookout for new activities.
So I told my OpenClaw instance to monitor it and notify me ONLY if there are activities beginning in March/April.
Now let's break down your suggestion:
> a cron job can fetch the info and push it to some notification service too, without also being a chaos agent.
How exactly is this going to know if the activity begins in March/April? And which notification service? How will it talk to it?
Sounds like you're suggesting writing a script and putting it in a cron job. Am I going to do that every time such a task comes up? Do I need to parse the HTML each time to figure out the exact locators, etc? I've done that once or twice in the past. It works, but there is always a mental burden on working out all those details. So I typically don't do it. For something like this, I wouldn't have bothered - I would have just checked the site every few days manually.
Here: You have 15 minutes. Go write that script and test it. Will you bother? I didn't think so. But with OpenClaw, it's no effort.
Oh, and I need to by physically near my computer to write the script.
Now the OpenClaw approach:
I tell it to do this while on a grocery errand. Or while in the office. I don't need to be home.
It's a 4 step process:
"Hey, can you go to the site and give me all the afterschool activities and their start dates?"
<Confirm it does that>
"Hey, write a skill that does that, and notifies me if the start date is ..."
"Hey, let's test the skill out manually"
<Confirm skill works>
"Hey, schedule a check every 10:30am"
And we're done.
I don't do this all at once. I can ask it to do the first thing, and forget about it for an hour or two, and then come back and continue.
There are a zillion scripts I could write to make my life easier that I'm not writing. The benefit of OpenClaw is that it now is writing them for me. 15 minutes * 1 zillion is a lot of time I've saved.
I agree with the sentiment that there are use cases for web scraping where an agent is preferable to a cron job, but I think your particular example can certainly be achieved with a cron job and a basic parser script. Just have Claude write it.
I didn't say it's not doable. I'm not even saying it's hard. But nothing beats telling Claw to do it for me while I'm in the middle of groceries.
Put another way: If it can do it (reliably), why on Earth would I babysit Claude to write it?
The whole point is this: When AI coding became a thing, many folks rediscovered the joy of programming, because now they could use Claude to code up stuff they wouldn't have bothered to. The barrier to entry went down. OpenClaw is simply that taken to the next level.
And as an aside, let's just dispense with parsing altogether! If I were writing this as a script, I would simply fetch the text of the page, and have the script send it to an LLM instead of parsing. Why worry about parsing bugs on a one-off script?
Fair point, I just think that example is better off running on a cron job than using compute from llm inference, (though that will become negligible over time, anyways).
Scripts fail. Agents exfiltrate your data because someone hacked the school's website with prompt injections. Make sure it's a choice and not ignorance of the risks.
People on both sides are just getting started finding all the ways to abuse or protect you from security assumptions with these tools. RSS is the right tool for this problem and I would be surprised if their CMS doesn't produce a feed on its own.
I'm not totally naive. I had the VM fairly hardened originally, but it proved to be inconvenient. I relaxed it so that processes on the VM can see other devices on the network.
Now this tool spreads. You help everyone get it set up. Someone hacks the site, injects a prompt lying about some event, maybe Drag Queen Story Hour in a place with lots of people enraged about it. Now there's chaos and confusion. Corrections chase the spread of misinformation.
Giving plausible examples could further your case. But at some point you have got to realize that other people have actually thought about these things are are willing to do this.
Imagine going up to everyone riding a motorcycle and telling them about the inherent dangers of their activity and to stop. It is obvious that the OP understands risk, has taken several strong steps to harden their system and isn’t worried about the school calendar getting hacked making an event that they would get notified about and that destroying their community somehow. I don’t even understand openclaws place. The exact same events would unfold without the ai in there at all.
The trick is to give them a tree pruning chain saw, one intended for climbing tree loppers to use one handed - it's an ideal weight for nine years old to use two handed.
And to supervise.
As tested on my children and grand children.
Also, if you happen to have a furnace with a large pot of molten glass, five year olds are capable (given a stand) of making marbles from the furnance and will do that for hours if you can spare the time to let them.
It increasingly seems like most people make a different decision after thinking through the security implications of something like this. This is me being charitable.
A personal assistant of some sort that is actually useful at some stuff and not just a toy?
It’s not some huge life changing thing for me, but I also only dabble with it - certainly it has no access to anything very important to my life.
I find it incredibly useful to just have a chat line open with a little agent running on a tiny computer on my IoT network at home I can ask to do basic chores.
Last night I realized I forgot to set the permanent holiday lights to “obnoxious st parties day animation” at around 9pm. It was basically the effect of “hey siri, please talk to the front house wled controller and set an appropriate very colorful theme for the current holiday until morning” while I drove to pick my wife up from a friends house.
Without such a quick off-handed ability to get that done, there was zero chance I was coming home 20 minutes later, remembering I should do that, spending 10 minutes googling an appropriate preset lighting theme someone already came up with, grabbing laptop, and clicking a half dozen buttons to get that done.
Trivial use case? Yup. But those trivial things add up for a measurable quality of life difference to me.
I’m sure there are better and cleaner ways to achieve similar - but it’s a very fast on-ramp into getting something from zero to useful without needing to learn all this stuff from the ground up. Every time I think of something around that complexity level I go “ugh. I’ll get to it at some point” but if I spend 15 minutes with openclaw I can usually have a decent tool that is “good enough” for future use to get related things done for the future.
It’s done far more complex development/devops “lab” stuff for me that at least proved some concepts for work later. I’ll throw away the output, but these are items that would have been put off indefinitely due to activation energy because the basics are trivial but annoyingly time consuming. Spin up a few VMs, configure basic networking, install and configure the few open source tools I wanted to test out, create some simple glue code to mock out what I wanted to try out. That sort of thing. Basically stuff I would have a personal intern do if I could afford one.
For now it’s basically doing my IT chores for me. The other night I had it finally get around to setting up some dashboards and Prometheus monitoring for some various sensors and WiFi stuff around the house. Useful when I need it, but not something I ever got around to doing myself for the past 7 years since I moved in. Knocking out that todo list is pretty nice!
The risk is pretty moderate for me. Worst case it deletes configs or bricks something it has access to and I need to roll back from backups it does not have permissions to even know exist, much less modify. It certainly has zero access to personal email, real production environments, or anything like that.
OpenClaw has a persistent memory, stored to disk, and an efficient way of accessing it. ChatGPT and Claude both added a rudimentary "memory" feature in March but it's nowhwere as extensible or vendor neutral.
> In isolation, nobody _wants_ their vehicle to spew black smoke.
Honestly, when I was 12 years old and my dad floored the TDi in our Land Rover (with the diesel particulate filter deleted), it felt satisfying in a way, like the machine is allowed to be its most efficient self.
Now that I'm adult, I know that it's marginal gains for the car and terrible for the environment, but there are people that have the thinking capability of a 12 year old driving these trucks. I don't think all of them do it because of spite (though I'm sure most do).
While I don't have OpenClaw installed and not sure how I 'd use it I doubt all the hype around it is because it doesn't solve a real problem. The project grew to huge popularity organically!!!
How can that happen if it doesn't serve a need people have?
NFTs were fueled by two different drives. One interested in the technology and if it could do something new and interesting, and another seeing it as an area of speculation (be that fueled by get rich quick and cash out or thinking it is a long term investment generally driven by how much the first factor played in).
OpenClaw seems to lack the monetary interest driving it as much. Not to say there is none, but I don't see people doing nearly as much to get me to buy their OpenClaw.
So, yes, on some level, hype alone doesn't prove use, because it can also be because of making money. But, on the other hand, the specific version of hype seems much more focused on the "Look at what I built" and much less on "Better buy in now" from the builders themselves. Of course the API providers selling tokens are loving it for financial reasons.
"And that's why we've created MailCoin, the best way to perform stochastic mailbox ablation with with the latest, hottest blockchain technology." - from Show HN, March 20, 2026
I'll ignore the bait and answer: NFTs were gambling in disguise, these claws are personal/household assistants, that proactively perform various tasks and can be genuinely useful. The security problem is very much unsolved, but comparing them to NFTs is just willfully ignorant at best
China is producing 7nm chips and working on 5nm. The lead has shrunk to be almost insignificant.
People on internet forums are obsessed over "bleeding edge" fabs, when the vast majority of semiconductor products are designed for a specific process and kept in production for at least a decade.
If beating Taiwan is your definition of "catching up", then you're basically making China's status as a legitimate semiconductor manufacturer contingent on the obsolescence of everyone else's status. That's not very fair and it's not even something to brag about. Once you lose the grin, it would be game over for you.
Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission". I don't think it's just some random crazy person. It's true that they're behaving in a strange way and utilizing shady overseas institutions, but the owner of Rodik is listed in the Panama Papers as having an offshore company in the Cayman Islands ( https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/74594 ) so that fits his MO.
As for motivation, in Japan there's much less of a cultural norm around sharing information publicly compared to the West. It's much more "if I have this thing and you don't, and I don't know you, why should I give it to you?" Some people will even get annoyed with you if you follow them on Twitter and you don't know them, or if you link to their website without asking them first. With that context, I don't think there needs to be much of a motivation beyond "people are posting videos and copies of my game online and I don't want them to".
Of course whoever is doing this doesn't seem to want to make themselves known publicly besides all the takedown notices, so I doubt we'll ever conclusively find out who they are. Much of what was being taken down is valid fair use, so even if it is someone associated with the original developer I don't really feel sorry for them getting their automated takedown request powers taken away.
>Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission".
Eh I am a bit of a collector and this line of thinking would let me establish copyright for a ton of games I have some precious treasures from.
Also I know a guy who worked for Sega and Nintendo for a while who is still sitting on a stack of design docs from his time in both, and he definitely doesn't own the IP for any of their games.
I suspect this person has located or inherited these items and is trying to establish copyright in the same way that Craig Wright is trying to pass himself off as Satoshi.
The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks.
That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious.
The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is why would anyone believe there is money to be made there. Its not like sending takedown notices is a renewable source of income.
Even if someone was making a movie about it, the secrecy doesnt make a lot of sense. The guy could clear so much up with just an email.
>Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik
Just a few years ago, the son of one of the original Metal Fatigue developers found old nightly backups and handed them over to Nightdive. I just find this to be a pretty weak element of the argument. The person with the strongest claim, using the weakest methods to establish that claim doesnt make sense to me.
The most plausible explanation, based on the facts so far provided, is that it is Harigai, and he is not happy with how the game/company turned out and does not want to be reminded about it anymore.
In fact they just spent a few thousand dollars according to the article. But they cost the museum probably 200k+ in time and legal fees - asymmetric copyright warfare.
But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence.
Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one.
2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more important targets.
They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns.
Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals.
That's hard to reconcile with actions like issuing DMCA takedowns on videos of the game (or even Discord messages which mention it). If fewer people know a game exists, there's less of a market for copies of it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51756984
reply