Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

OpenClaw was an inevitability. An obvious idea that predates LLMs. It took this long for models and pricing to catch up. As much as I dislike this term, if there's one clear example of "Product Model Fit", it's OpenClaw - well, except that arguably what made it truly possible was subscription pricing introduced with Claude Code; before, people were extremely conservative with tokens.

But the point is, OpenClaw is just the first that lucked and got viral. If not for it, something equivalent would. Much like LangChain in the early LLM days.

View on HN

> if there's one clear example of "Product Model Fit", it's OpenClaw

You think so? OpenClaw certainly owned the hype cycle for a while. There was a thread on HN last week where someone asked who was actually using it, and the comments were overwhelmingly "tried it, it was janky and I didn't have a good use case for it, so I turned it off." With a handful of people who seemed to have committed to it and had compelling use cases. Obviously anecdotal, but that has been the trend I've seen on conversations around it lately.

Also, the fact that the most starred repo on GitHub in a matter of a few months raises a few questions for me about what is actually driving that hype cycle. Seems hard to believe that is strictly organic.

This thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47783940

pi.dev I'm much more interested in. Closer to the bone, or maybe better said, pi.dev is more like a lego and OpenClaw seems like a big Ninjago set.

I was shocked when I saw the guy behind libgdx was also behind pi.dev. Random tech worlds colliding.

Would you mind explaining what that idea actually is? I don't understand what people are trying to do with this thing, or why they would think that would be a good thing to do, and some of the stories about it sound basically insane, so I must not be grasping the core idea.

It's a handful of useful features that together feel qualitatively different, like you're talking to a real person.

Such things always feel qualitatively different to the people captured by the craze; it doesn't mean there actually is a difference.

It seems like the most fully reified attempt at allowing a person to delegate _all_ of their responsibilities to the Slop Machine.

Which has of course always been the true allure of AI. Do nothing and pretend you did something, when pretending is something you can be bothered to do.

Plain English automation, including control of external systems. Even better that it exhibits some forms of decision-making autonomy for edge cases.

To me it seems like an LLM-based implementation of automation software like Zapier. The problem with Zapier is you need services to provide APIs and Zapier needs to support those APIs to implement it in the automation workflow.

But because OpenClaw can just use a web browser like a normal user, you don't need all these APIs and there's no theoretical limitations on the services that can be integrated and automated.

Right now there's a lot of issues/bugs. People have more trust in a deterministic solution like Zapier. But maybe the LLMs and OpenClaw will get there eventually, and if it does, I can see how that's a better solution than a deterministic system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com