5 ms·

I don't understand how this can be enforced without ridiculous levels of false positives. I'm truly baffled. The same with Claude Code situation. gemini-cli, c

by gck1 8mo ago

I don't understand how this can be enforced without ridiculous levels of false positives. I'm truly baffled. The same with Claude Code situation. gemini-cli, claude-code, codex etc, they ALL have a -p flag or equivalent, which is non-interactive IO interface for their LLM inference. If I wire my tooling (or openclaw) to use the -p flag (or equivalents), is that allowed? Okay, maybe they get rid of the -p flag and I have to use an interactive session. I can then just use OS IO tooling to wire OpenClaw with their cli. Is that allowed? How does sending requests directly to the endpoints that their CLI is communicating with suddenly make their subsidized plans expensive? Is it because now I can actually use my 100% quota? If that's so, does it mean their products are such that their profitability stands on people not using them? What is even going on?

dev1ycan 8mo ago
Every subscription's profitability stands on people forgetting to unsubscribe, how is this surprising?
- gck1 8mo ago
  They're in the wrong business then. They're selling peak automation software, with the sales pitch of 'have AI do your work while you sleep'. Are they banning their core offering? Are Ralph' loops also banned for building software? Because I can drain my quota with a simple bash loop faster than any OpenClaw instance.
  - harrall 8mo ago
    You most likely don’t pay per call for your cellphone. You most likely don’t pay per machine to use the gym. You don’t pay per cup if they allow unlimited refills. You are not supposed to go into an all-you-can eat buffet and stuff steaks into your bag. Sometimes not all of us want to do the math à la carte for every thing we use in life. Don’t ruin it for us.
    - akssassin907 8mo ago
      The buffet analogy breaks down here. Using OpenClaw isn't stuffing steaks in your bag — you're eating the same food, in the same seat, consuming the same tokens your subscription allows. Google banned you because they didn't like the plate you brought. Then took your house key as punishment. The steaks-in-bag analogy would apply if you were somehow extracting MORE than your quota. You're not. You're just routing the same tokens differently.
- dmix 8mo ago
  You must not work in the SaaS business if you think that
  - jcgrillo 8mo ago
    Not sure if this is sarcasm, but I'll respond as if it isn't. Having worked my entire career to date in the SaaS business, it is well known in some verticals that a large portion of revenue comes from companies that literally do not know they have purchased your product. And when you have a large customer like that, people are very careful to walk quietly and not do anything to notify them. I've seen it happen quite a few times.
hendersoon 8mo ago
The -p flag should be fine, so long as you don't use their oauth in a third-party tool. Gemini also supports A2A for this sort of thing.
- gck1 8mo ago
  But the question is - why is the -p flag fine? It hits the same endpoints with the same OAuth token and same quotas. Comments section here and on related news from Anthropic seems to be centered around the idea that the reason for these bans is that it burns tokens quickly, while their plans are subsidized. What changes with the -p flag? You're just using cli instead of HTTP. Are the metrics from their cli more valuable than the treasure trove of prompt data that passes through to them either way that justifies this PR?
  - adastra22 8mo ago
    Because the ToS explicitly says the -p flag is fine, but the Agent SDK is not.
  - NitpickLawyer 8mo ago
    > Are the metrics from their cli more valuable than the treasure trove of prompt data that passes through to them either way that justifies this PR? Yes. The only reason they subsidise all-you-can-prompt subscriptions is to collect additional data / signals. They can use those signals to further improve their models.
  - samuel 8mo ago
    I assume that -p is the same that "codex exec". The difference is that in this case the agent loop is executed, which has all the caching and behaviour guarantees. What I assume OpenClaw is doing is calling the endpoint directly while retaining its own "agent logic" so it doesn't follow whatever conventions is the backend expecting. How important is that difference, I can't say, but aside the cost factor I assume Google doesn't want to subsidize agents that aren't theirs and in some way "the competition".
merlindru 8mo ago
claude -p is allowed as far as I'm aware. if i understand correctly, they even have a wrapper around it to make it easier to use: the Claude Agent SDK the thing that's disallowed is pretending you're the claude binary, logging in through OAuth in other words, if you use some product thats not Claude Code, and your browser opens asking you to "give Claude Code access to your account", you're in hot water as for how they detect it: they say they use heuristics and usage patterns. if something falls wildly out of the distribution it's a ban. my take is that the problem is not the means of detection. that's fine and seems to work well. the problem is that its an instant outright ban. they should give you a couple warning emails, then a timeout, etc.
- nikcub 8mo ago
  > they say they use heuristics and usage patterns. cache hit rate alone would stand out
  - mvdtnz 8mo ago
    Why do you mean by this? What cache?
    - mirashii 8mo ago
      Generally speaking, there's prompt caching that can be enabled in the API with things like this: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-caching https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt... For a specific harness, they've all found ways to optimize to get higher cache hit rates with their harness. Common system prompts and all, and more and more users hitting cache really makes the cost of inference go down dramatically. What bothers me about a lot of the discussion about providers disallowing other harnesses with the subscription plans around here is the complete lack of awareness of how economies of scale from common caching practices across more users can enable the higher, cheaper quotas subscriptions give you.
      - lurkshark 8mo ago
rustyhancock 8mo ago
The direct answer is their clients play extra nice with their backend. Specifically all optimize caching. The indirect answer is for everyone using third party tools to play about there are 10x using it to spam or malicious use cases hammering their backend far cheaper than if it was by API. These people are the false positives in this situation, but whether Google or Claude care is unlikely. They're happy to ban you and expect you to sign up for the API. This has always been a worry when you use a service like Google.
joshribakoff 8mo ago
There are examples of labs banning these use cases for sure, as well as the presence of terms and conditions allowing them to ban you for merely “competing” with them. If you’re building, it could be worth locking in a contract first.
mannanj 8mo ago
I feel like it's about data quality. They want humans using the tools because that data is valuable and helps them improve the product. AI's using their product like OpenClaw makes their training missions harder. And even if you opt-out of training, they are still using your data for non-training purposes (you can't open out of that) and that human data is valuable.
googinsider123 8mo ago
Haha, no. I can tell you that it is so obvious and there is basically no false positives. Can’t share more details though. If it makes you feel any better, some google employees have their personal accounts banned too (only Gemini access, not the whole account) for running opeclaw, and also have a hard time getting their account reinstated.
- andersmurphy 8mo ago
  Its obvious why this us getting blocked open claw will make multiple orders if magnitude more requests. For each open claw user you could support tens of thousands of regular users. The financial costs would clearly be ruinous.
- gverrilla 8mo ago
  I'm sure google employees that were banned can talk to a HUMAN to solve it.
lelanthran 8mo ago
> I don't understand how this can be enforced without ridiculous levels of false positives. It's embarrassingly trivial, IMO - compare what antigravity reports for token to what the backend reports for token usage for that user.

by gck1 8mo ago

dev1ycan 8mo ago

Every subscription's profitability stands on people forgetting to unsubscribe, how is this surprising?

gck1 8mo ago
They're in the wrong business then. They're selling peak automation software, with the sales pitch of 'have AI do your work while you sleep'. Are they banning their core offering? Are Ralph' loops also banned for building software? Because I can drain my quota with a simple bash loop faster than any OpenClaw instance.
- harrall 8mo ago
  You most likely don’t pay per call for your cellphone. You most likely don’t pay per machine to use the gym. You don’t pay per cup if they allow unlimited refills. You are not supposed to go into an all-you-can eat buffet and stuff steaks into your bag. Sometimes not all of us want to do the math à la carte for every thing we use in life. Don’t ruin it for us.
  - akssassin907 8mo ago
    The buffet analogy breaks down here. Using OpenClaw isn't stuffing steaks in your bag — you're eating the same food, in the same seat, consuming the same tokens your subscription allows. Google banned you because they didn't like the plate you brought. Then took your house key as punishment. The steaks-in-bag analogy would apply if you were somehow extracting MORE than your quota. You're not. You're just routing the same tokens differently.
dmix 8mo ago
You must not work in the SaaS business if you think that
- jcgrillo 8mo ago
  Not sure if this is sarcasm, but I'll respond as if it isn't. Having worked my entire career to date in the SaaS business, it is well known in some verticals that a large portion of revenue comes from companies that literally do not know they have purchased your product. And when you have a large customer like that, people are very careful to walk quietly and not do anything to notify them. I've seen it happen quite a few times.

hendersoon 8mo ago

The -p flag should be fine, so long as you don't use their oauth in a third-party tool. Gemini also supports A2A for this sort of thing.

gck1 8mo ago
But the question is - why is the -p flag fine? It hits the same endpoints with the same OAuth token and same quotas. Comments section here and on related news from Anthropic seems to be centered around the idea that the reason for these bans is that it burns tokens quickly, while their plans are subsidized. What changes with the -p flag? You're just using cli instead of HTTP. Are the metrics from their cli more valuable than the treasure trove of prompt data that passes through to them either way that justifies this PR?
- adastra22 8mo ago
  Because the ToS explicitly says the -p flag is fine, but the Agent SDK is not.
- NitpickLawyer 8mo ago
  > Are the metrics from their cli more valuable than the treasure trove of prompt data that passes through to them either way that justifies this PR? Yes. The only reason they subsidise all-you-can-prompt subscriptions is to collect additional data / signals. They can use those signals to further improve their models.
- samuel 8mo ago
  I assume that -p is the same that "codex exec". The difference is that in this case the agent loop is executed, which has all the caching and behaviour guarantees. What I assume OpenClaw is doing is calling the endpoint directly while retaining its own "agent logic" so it doesn't follow whatever conventions is the backend expecting. How important is that difference, I can't say, but aside the cost factor I assume Google doesn't want to subsidize agents that aren't theirs and in some way "the competition".

merlindru 8mo ago

claude -p is allowed as far as I'm aware. if i understand correctly, they even have a wrapper around it to make it easier to use: the Claude Agent SDK the thing that's disallowed is pretending you're the claude binary, logging in through OAuth in other words, if you use some product thats not Claude Code, and your browser opens asking you to "give Claude Code access to your account", you're in hot water as for how they detect it: they say they use heuristics and usage patterns. if something falls wildly out of the distribution it's a ban. my take is that the problem is not the means of detection. that's fine and seems to work well. the problem is that its an instant outright ban. they should give you a couple warning emails, then a timeout, etc.

nikcub 8mo ago
> they say they use heuristics and usage patterns. cache hit rate alone would stand out
- mvdtnz 8mo ago
  Why do you mean by this? What cache?
  - mirashii 8mo ago
    Generally speaking, there's prompt caching that can be enabled in the API with things like this: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-caching https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt... For a specific harness, they've all found ways to optimize to get higher cache hit rates with their harness. Common system prompts and all, and more and more users hitting cache really makes the cost of inference go down dramatically. What bothers me about a lot of the discussion about providers disallowing other harnesses with the subscription plans around here is the complete lack of awareness of how economies of scale from common caching practices across more users can enable the higher, cheaper quotas subscriptions give you.
    - lurkshark 8mo ago

rustyhancock 8mo ago

The direct answer is their clients play extra nice with their backend. Specifically all optimize caching. The indirect answer is for everyone using third party tools to play about there are 10x using it to spam or malicious use cases hammering their backend far cheaper than if it was by API. These people are the false positives in this situation, but whether Google or Claude care is unlikely. They're happy to ban you and expect you to sign up for the API. This has always been a worry when you use a service like Google.

joshribakoff 8mo ago

There are examples of labs banning these use cases for sure, as well as the presence of terms and conditions allowing them to ban you for merely “competing” with them. If you’re building, it could be worth locking in a contract first.

mannanj 8mo ago

I feel like it's about data quality. They want humans using the tools because that data is valuable and helps them improve the product. AI's using their product like OpenClaw makes their training missions harder. And even if you opt-out of training, they are still using your data for non-training purposes (you can't open out of that) and that human data is valuable.

googinsider123 8mo ago

Haha, no. I can tell you that it is so obvious and there is basically no false positives. Can’t share more details though. If it makes you feel any better, some google employees have their personal accounts banned too (only Gemini access, not the whole account) for running opeclaw, and also have a hard time getting their account reinstated.

andersmurphy 8mo ago
Its obvious why this us getting blocked open claw will make multiple orders if magnitude more requests. For each open claw user you could support tens of thousands of regular users. The financial costs would clearly be ruinous.
gverrilla 8mo ago
I'm sure google employees that were banned can talk to a HUMAN to solve it.

lelanthran 8mo ago

> I don't understand how this can be enforced without ridiculous levels of false positives. It's embarrassingly trivial, IMO - compare what antigravity reports for token to what the backend reports for token usage for that user.