7 ms·
I reproduced this on my account. cd /tmp mkdir anthropic-claude cd anthropic-claude/ git init touch hello git add -A git commit -m
by abdullin 5mo ago
I reproduced this on my account.
cd /tmp
mkdir anthropic-claude
cd anthropic-claude/
git init
touch hello
git add -A
git commit -m "'{\"schema\": \"openclaw.inbound_meta.v1\"}'"
claude -p "hi"
Immediate disconnect and session usage went to 100%
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- rich_sasha 5mo agoThat's rather shitty. It's one thing to disallow bypassing preferential pricing models, it's a completely different thing to castrate your model against some uses. You can see how it goes in the future. Wanna vibe code a throwaway script? $0.20. Ah, it's for a legal document search? $10k then. Oh and we'll charge 20% of your app sales too - I can see how they are going in real time, mind you!
- dangus 5mo agoThis is absolutely how it’s going work. AI loses way too much money to not be enshittified. It’s a way less transformational technology when put in context of the real price tag.
- rapind 5mo agoNo chance unless open weight models out of China discontinue. The gap right now is practically nonexistent.
- delusional 5mo agoWhen the consolidation phase starts, you bet your ass open weight models are going to stop.
- mitchitized 5mo agoI don't think consolidation will ever happen, the AI space is already dominated by a few whales. Seems most of the open weight models are from outside the USA (shocker), going to be interesting to see how THAT shakes out.
- dragonwriter 5mo agoThe firms training those models have costs; without monetization they are even more unsustainable than subsidized commercial models. (Effectively, they are just a heavy form of subsidy ro overcome being commercially behind.)
- delusional 5mo agoI mean obviously. Why would the companies that control this technology NOT charge the absolute maximum amount their customers are willing to pay? This doesn't even have anything to do with if it loses money or not. Obviously they are going to charge as much as possible.
- rapind 5mo agoIdeally? Competition.
- bugglebeetle 5mo agoDeepseek has demonstrated that there is no reason for it to actually lose money. The awful business practices and monopoly tactics of the frontier model labs in the US are the problem.
- rapind 5mo agoIt'll be interesting to see what happens when OpenAI goes public. I'm expecting the executives to run away with bags of money once they offload their insane risk to the public... or maybe there's a bailout / money printer scenario in the works. I guarantee some insider adjacents are going to make a killing in a way that will never be investigated.
- fragmede 5mo agoHow would they make money in a way that should be investigated? Favored insider-adjacent folk would have been able to invest in pre-IPO SPVs or whatever that will have outsized returns, assuming the IPO goes well. It's unfair, but above board (accredited investor etc) according to the SEC, so what would they investigate? Unless there's other malfeasance you're alleging.
- dragonwriter 5mo agoAI loses money for two reasons: (1) certain uses where owning the market is expected to be a high long-term value are currently heavily subsidized (the top-level story here is about the increasing efforts of model providers to prevent exploits where people convert subsidized services to uses outside the target of the subsidy), and (2) development costs of new models to keep up with competition.
- throwaway277432 5mo agoUnironically yes. I predict that costs will grow to 80% of what it would cost a human, across the board for everything AI can do. "It's still cheaper than a human" they'll say. Loudly here on HN too. Of course this will happen slowly, very slowly. Lets meet again in 10-20 years.
- pingou 5mo agoThis is assuming there will be no competition. But why wouldn't there be? Especially since you can use open source models, which are not too far from frontier models (from now).
- KronisLV 5mo ago> "It's still cheaper than a human" they'll say. The question is how much friction there will be for people to switch over to Gemini, GPT or maybe even DeepSeek or Mistral or whatever. Even if price hikes are inevitable across the board, the moat any single org has is somewhat limited, so prices definitely will be a factor they'll compete on with one another at least a bit.
- RussianCow 5mo ago> the moat any single org has is somewhat limited I disagree. The models are going to become commodities (we're already almost there), but the tooling and integrations will be the moat. Reproducing everything Anthropic has already built with Claude Code, Cowork, and all their connectors would be nontrivial, and they're just getting started. Anyone can implement an AI chatbot. But few will be able to provide AI that's deeply integrated into our daily lives.
- KronisLV 5mo ago> Reproducing everything Anthropic has already built with Claude Code, Cowork, and all their connectors would be nontrivial, and they're just getting started. They're one org with presumably some specific direction. As the actual models get better, expect a large part of the dev community iterating on tools way more easily, sometimes ones that Anthropic doesn't quite have an equivalent to - for example, just recently Cline released their Kanban solution to dish out tasks to agents (https://cline.bot/kanban https://cline.bot/kanban), OpenCode has been around for a while for the agentic stuff (https://opencode.ai/ https://opencode.ai/) and now has a desktop and web version as well, alongside dozens of others. Cline and KiloCode also have decent browser automation. I will admit that everyone working on everything at the same time definitely means limitless reinvention of the wheel and some genuinely good initiatives dying off along the way (I personally liked RooCode more than both the Cline and KiloCode for Visual Studio Code, sad to see them go), but I doubt we're gonna see a lack of software. Maybe a lack of good software, though; not like Anthropic or any org has any moat there either, since they're under the additional pressure of having to do a shitload of PR and release new models and keep up appearances, compared to your average dev just pushing to GitHub (unless they want corporate money, in which case they do need some polish).
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoI'm not a lawyer but is this legal? It's extremely anticompetitive.
- bdangubic 5mo agowhat is illegal about it?! their product, they can do whatever they want and you can choose to be a customer or not, no?
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoThey are technically billing people for services not rendered without any disclaimer?
- duped 5mo agoPrice discrimination for services is mostly legal
- in_cahoots 5mo agoImagine if it were Comcast instead of Claude. Comcast gives you 750GB of data a month. Now they decide that visiting HN 'counts' as 750GB and either shut you off or bill you extra. Is that price discrimination or changing the terms after the fact?
- duped 5mo agoDepends. Comcast is able to charge you and a business for the same service at different rates. They have also tried to do exactly what you're talking about, where they bill differently based on the data being accessed (remember net neutrality?). But that's a bad example, price discrimination for commodities is generally not legal, while discrimination for services is. Data is arguably a commodity (ianal, I'm not up to date on the law of this). "Tokens" are not. In fact the law makes carve outs specifically for businesses that sell services to discriminate on price based exactly on how the service is used and by who. And they do it all the time. Whether it's fair or not, up to you to decide as a consumer. If you don't like it don't pay for it.
- andai 5mo agoSo like taxes except they actually help you survive?
- p_stuart82 5mo agoYep. They built the quote engine before they built the pricing page. "OpenClaw" in your git history is enough to kick you off quota and onto metered billing.
- subscribed 5mo agoThat'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.
- otterley 5mo agoThere 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?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- bad_haircut72 5mo agoYeah they probably just typed in "Hey Claude, figure out a way to get our inference spend under control - no mistakes!" and shipped it
- gjsman-1000 5mo agoAlso they ain't wrong. In what other context does OpenClaw get mentioned? "You may not use our service if you mention OpenClaw" is a harsh line but hardly illegal or forbidden any more than any other service restriction (i.e. no use allowed for high-stakes financial modeling). Don't like it, cancel your plan.
- rv64imafdc 5mo ago> is a harsh line But that's the thing -- there is no line! Where is this specified? How can we know what service restrictions there are? For all I know, my plan could be exhausted at any point during the workday just because I happened to touch on some keyword Anthropic has decided to ban. > Don't like it, cancel your plan. Ah, but I thought these models were supposed to have been trained for the sake of humanity? That the arbitrary enclosure of the collective intelligence was for our own good? These concepts are not compatible.
- isoprophlex 5mo agoThink they turned it off, or it's not always active. I can't reproduce it myself.
- ori_b 5mo agoOr a/b testing.
- deaux 5mo agoNot reproing here either.
- _blk 5mo agoI guess someone did read the post. Wasn't OpenClaw usage re-allowed after the initial ban?
- SpicyLemonZest 5mo agoOpenclaw said that some unnamed Anthropic staff told them something along those lines, but their phrasing did not make it tremendously clear what was actually promised. Of course, the initial ban consisted of nothing more than a Twitter post from the lead developer, so who can know what Anthropic as such thinks about any of this?
- flutas 5mo agoMake sure you check your extra usage. I thought the same but then noticed that single prompt (exactly as posted) cost $0.20 of extra usage.
- kevincox 5mo agoIt can't be legal that they randomly charge extra usage with no user consent.
- Henchman21 5mo agoAre laws being enforced presently? I hadn’t noticed?
- mystraline 5mo agoIts not Claude Code. Its "Fraud Code". All of this is just criminal and fraudulent behavior, done July a whole bunch of people who haven't learned their lesson, and keep sending Anthropic more money for abuse at scale.
- gjsman-1000 5mo agoThere is literally nothing close to illegal about this behavior. You read the terms of service right, which provides a long list of explicit and implicit disclaimers?
- cyanydeez 5mo agoSo, in America, just because it's written in a contract does not mean it's enforceable in anyway. I can make you sign a infinitely generating contract, that doesn't mean it's enforceable/
- gjsman-1000 5mo ago> So, in America, just because it's written in a contract does not mean it's enforceable in anyway. But the presumption, as any court will show, is that it is fully blooming enforceable. The burden of proof is on showing it isn't. This particular instance, a lawyer would laugh at you in the face over, this is absolutely 100% stone cold enforceable common and expected. How do you expect Facebook or HN to moderate if certain uses aren't prohibited? The same principle applies. HN bans certain phrases, lots of them.
- atiedebee 5mo agoDoes HN randomly charge you money for using these phrases?
- vel0city 5mo ago> just because it's written in a contract does not mean it's enforceable in anyway And we continue slipping into lawlessness and a low trust society...
- petercooper 5mo agoI 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.
- teiferer 5mo agoZig maintainers listen up!
- bluefirebrand 5mo agoFrankly if a project asks for no AI and you try to use AI for it, then you kinda deserve this. Calling the inclusion of this sort of thing "smuggling" is placing the blame in the wrong spot
- petercooper 5mo agoI used the term "smuggling" in the casual sense of hiding something. I have edited it to "place such identifiers surreptitiously" to avoid making whatever implication appears to have been taken.
- waych 5mo agoIn the real world, leaving booby traps out that can harm others including the innocent are a liability and regularly a crime in itself. I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself.
- bossyTeacher 5mo ago>I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself. Whose law? Good luck trying to summon a random GitHub user to a court within your jurisdiction.
- direwolf20 5mo ago
- margalabargala 5mo agoThis partially reproduced for me. I did not see my session use go to 100%. I did however get: > API Error: 400 {"type":"error","error":{"type":"invalid_request_error","message":"You're out of extra usage. Add more at claude.ai/settings/usage and keep going."},"request_id":"redacted"}
- novaleaf 5mo agoyeah, this smells like a bug in their (dumb) usage segmentation. For example, there is a distinction of what is classified as extra-usage-billed VS extra-usage-enabled. As a long time claude user, I can assure you they are different things: to use Sonnet[1m] you are required to have extra-usage enabled, but it won't actually bill it unless you are out of quota. Surprisingly, you can use Opus[1m] without extra-usage enabled (!!!).
- redeye100 5mo agoThe logic is so fractured and inconsistent, almost incoherent. Almost as if an LLM made it up
- adriand 5mo agoThe narrative that they have guards against mentioning openclaw doesn’t make sense to me - I’ve been using Claude code to manage an openclaw instance for a few weeks now, with zero issues.
- sandeepkd 5mo agoMy assumption is that a lot of these checks and changes lately are not well though out. They are knee jerk reaction to address something which was not anticipated in the original design. A lot of these changes to address scaling and abuse challenges probably fall into bucket of applying bandages on top of bandages. Maybe if Claude could build something to validate the baseline quality of the product to ensure these things are discovered early on.
- captn3m0 5mo agoWorse than that, these are all vibe coded changes. If you look at any public Anthropocene codebase, they are all vibe coded messes with no coherent vision. I was looking at the Claude Code GitHub Action and it is a mess of options that don’t exist together, unclear documentation, and usage story being terribly unclear.
- raincole 5mo agoPeople say that a mostly-vibed project will collapse under its own weight. I personally doubt it, but I will be amused if the first big one falls this way is Claude Code itself.
- imtringued 5mo agoConsidering that Claude Code stalls out on the installation process for me to the point where I never had a chance to use it, we're already there.
- notarobot123 5mo agoI've seen ancient codebases that you need to be blessed by a priest to even touch but they keep chugging away and having new features added. I wouldn't hold my breath for a collapse, just a quagmire that we continually have to wade through to get anything done.
- jacamera 5mo agoIsn't it also true that the deeper and thicker the quagmire, the more tokens one will have to use to wade through it? This seems like a path to eventual LLM lock-in once the codebase gets messy enough. These things could end up being like 0% interest credit cards for technical debt. I guess it all depends on how the token usage scales over time. My guess is it will be steeper than linear.
- robotnikman 5mo agoCtrl + H replace openclaw with opensnippysnapper
- cachius 5mo agoWhy not simply git commit -m "openclaw" but this JSON thing?
- ddtaylor 5mo agoThe tweet mentions it being in a JSON blob.
- alfalfasprout 5mo agoon claude using bedrock it simply refuses to acknoweldge the existence of OpenClaw (Opus 4.7)
- 6Az4Mj4D 5mo agoI asked cluade to get code reviewed by codex. Is it the reason my usage went 80% ? I need to test that
- resonious 5mo agoI switched to Codex several weeks ago since the massive degradation of Claude Code's quality they recently apologized for. Since the apology and fix, I've considered switching back, but seeing this and other recent things, maybe I'm fine where I'm at.