3 ms·

> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activ

> * Why did openclaw allow Google anti gravity logins? OpenClaw went from virtually unheard of to a sensation in a couple weeks. There was intense commit activity and the main author bragged about not even reading the code himself. It was all heavily AI driven and moving at an extreme rate. Everyone was competing to get their commits in because they wanted to be a part of it. The entire project was a fast and furious experiment. Nobody was stopping to think if something was a good idea or not when someone published a plugin for using this endpoint. People just thought “cool!” and installed it.

lucianbr 9mo ago
That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?
- ddalex 9mo ago
  The consequences for Google are that the people are misusing the keys and the Google is fixing that. They're not banning anybody using proper API keys
  - otabdeveloper4 9mo ago
    > using AI for vibes is a fast track to bugs and security incidents Yes, that's what he said.
  - ForHackernews 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ddalex 9mo ago
      A human is not punished, the access of the robot to the API is restricted. The human has not suffered any damage.
      - ForHackernews 9mo ago
        The human paid money for access that has now been revoked.
        ddalex 9mo ago
        The human also started the bot.
    - pja 9mo ago
      You’re responsible for the things your AI agent does.
      - lucianbr 9mo ago
        If Google and OpenAI and the rest would say this as loud as they praise their models, I would never write comments like that. But this is the fine print, buried somewhere. And so we need to bring it up, because, lo and behold, it matters.
      - ForHackernews 9mo ago
        I'll be very surprised if our corporate masters allow that to be true, legally https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/622/ https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/622/
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  > That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. Not really. There’s a difference between accelerating development in the hands of an experienced developer versus having somebody just slop code by hoping for the best. Adopting AI doesn’t equal removing code review. These were two separate choices combined.
  - lucianbr 9mo ago
    > https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity Search for "review": 0 matches. Of course the fine print says to review, just like the ultimate control of the "full self driving" rests with the human driver. But why is the fine print fine, and not large as the large print? Maybe because you're not supposed to pay attention to it? Could this be?

lucianbr 9mo ago

That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. But I guess it's only ok when you work on regular joe facing projects, where the consequences of bugs are on powerless users. If the consequences are on Google, well, that's not acceptable now is it?

ddalex 9mo ago
The consequences for Google are that the people are misusing the keys and the Google is fixing that. They're not banning anybody using proper API keys
- otabdeveloper4 9mo ago
  > using AI for vibes is a fast track to bugs and security incidents Yes, that's what he said.
- ForHackernews 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ddalex 9mo ago
    A human is not punished, the access of the robot to the API is restricted. The human has not suffered any damage.
    - ForHackernews 9mo ago
      The human paid money for access that has now been revoked.
      - ddalex 9mo ago
        The human also started the bot.
  - pja 9mo ago
    You’re responsible for the things your AI agent does.
    - lucianbr 9mo ago
      If Google and OpenAI and the rest would say this as loud as they praise their models, I would never write comments like that. But this is the fine print, buried somewhere. And so we need to bring it up, because, lo and behold, it matters.
    - ForHackernews 9mo ago
      I'll be very surprised if our corporate masters allow that to be true, legally https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/622/ https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/622/
Aurornis 9mo ago
> That's how AI is supposed to be used, no? That's what the providers advertise - it increases development speed, a lot, it replaces devs and so on. Not really. There’s a difference between accelerating development in the hands of an experienced developer versus having somebody just slop code by hoping for the best. Adopting AI doesn’t equal removing code review. These were two separate choices combined.
- lucianbr 9mo ago
  > https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity Search for "review": 0 matches. Of course the fine print says to review, just like the ultimate control of the "full self driving" rests with the human driver. But why is the fine print fine, and not large as the large print? Maybe because you're not supposed to pay attention to it? Could this be?