This and threatening OpenClaw (now at OpenAI), Anthropic really on a roll making friends in Open Source.
Previously discussed I think:
Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments)
Previously discussed I think:
Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments)
Anthropic sells a service that bundles server and client. They are not wild about people taking their server part and using their own clients because the business model relies on both client behaviors (Claude code does a lot of work to achieve > 95% cache hit rates; third party clients likely don’t) and flywheel of usage data.
If Microsoft went after third party clients that emulated M365 and used their backend, would that also “make friends” in open source somehow?
Typically services that try to gatekeep standard http don't get very far with the kind of people that like to modify their software.
They were the largest commercial Unix vendor of the early 1980s, and their largest platform was the TRS-80 Model 2.
The cutthroat hostility didn't start until the DEC people arrived.
That's really all there is to it. It has nothing to do with open or closed source.
What's likely is that light users are paying for heavy users and API pricing is heavily inflated.
Anthropic stance has not been consistent. There are even now still articles by them telling users about unattended use like in CI which would now be considered TOS
Their stance has just been clear for a year now, even if they've changed their mind in comparison to the introduction of the sub, which significantly predates Claude code
Their documentation, cli, SDKs, TOS, their public stance - have major contradictions and are subject to so much interpretation that you can't really figure out what's allowed and what's not.
Opencode allowed? No
Custom agentic harnesses allowed? Yes
Opencode is a custom agentic harness? Yes, but not allowed
Which agentic harness is allowed? Can I use a custom agentic harness I develop - say, tmux that runs claude code? We don't know, but you'll know if we ban you
In 6 months, people won't work anymore. They will all use my products, outsource the thinking, why bother.
Oh and open weight models have no value...
There is a paper out there showing 30% of CEOs/C-suite have some psychopath tendencies. Not sure if they even used the term narcissistic , but I would add delusional.
It’ll be interesting to see if companies get tricked. I think it’s inevitable that it goes like MySQL/Postgres, where the open tools gets way better
If distillation wasn't a thing, they would certainly exist, they would have trained them from scratch or via a decent base models to remain economically viable.
What's for sure is that Claude wouldn't exist if it wasn't for data stolen from millions of creators. As they found themselves admittedly guilty of.
At not a single point in history did Llama ever achieve comparable real-world performance to frontier models. I was around. At best they were earlier at benchmaxxing than the others.
Nowadays the harness matters more than the model itself. For example pi.dev + GPT5-codex is a lot smarter than plain codex cli
They aren't. Any difference is in sampling parameters and post-training flavor choices. These aren't things that are "materially ahead", that's basically just LLM themes.
Listen, I want more open weight models in the world. They create entrepreneurial opportunities and support use cases which the foundation labs don’t want to support.
But open weight models are consistently three to six months behind on performance compared to closed models, as confirmed by both benchmarks and personal use. They’re closer on coding and much further away on non-coding tasks.
There are theories as to why these models lag, which I won’t get into. But anyone claiming open-weight models are close to closed-weight models is ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.
Please so demonstrate?
If I can do this, then a company that wants to sell local models seriously could do it too.
Wow, that's amazing! Care to share the changes? Would love to try them out.
What's amazing is that LLM technologies are so immature that even basic engineering diligence isn't being done. (Like detecting token loops, for example.)
Yeah, like I said - it's just a post-training difference. That's not a material difference, that's a difference of chrome and polish.
IIRC it was called Clawdbot when Anthropic complained. IANAL but I believe the holder of a trademark is obligated to defend it against infringement. Hard to say that Clawdbot was not potentially infringing, given its purpose. It's not clear how much leeway Anthropic had given his initial choice of name.
I wonder why conversation can never progress. When a stake goes in the ground, it never ever comes out.
FWIW OpenAI didn't buy OpenClaw.
In the context of the seemingly aggressive machinations of Anthropic your hair-splitting without clarifying beyond "OpenAI didn't buy OpenClaw" seems itself misleading and rather counter to helping conversations progress.
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion
The example in question is a Trademark for "T. Markey" and the conflicting mark is listed as "Tee Marqee".
Reasonableness is a thing here. Every person in this thread knows why it was called Clawdbot and not (say) Peterbot or cronbot. That we all know that reason is the problem.
Edit, the USPTO does in fact make this blindingly easy to find:
https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement
"How do I know whether I'm infringing?" --> "The key factors considered in most cases are the degree of similarity between the marks at issue and whether the parties' goods and/or services are sufficiently related that consumers are likely to assume (mistakenly) that they come from a common source."
If you wanted to find out the actual legal arguments, you could release and promote software for white-collar workers called Mycrosoft Offyce and I am sure you will get official legal answers from Microsoft's counsel.
"Safety" is just complete control for them.