Yes, serious. Even if openclaw is entirely useless (which I didn't think it is), it's still a good idea to harden it and make people's computers safer from attack, no? I don't see anyone objecting to fixing vulnerabilities in Angry Birds.

▲

wiseowise an hour ago | parent [-]

> that's enormous economic value

> OpenClaw's massive adoption.

I was talking about those two.

	▲	falcor84 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Here's the chain of the thread: >Opus 4.6 uncovers 500 zero-day flaws in open-source code >Just 100 from the 500 is from OpenClaw created by Opus 4.5 >Well, even then, that's enormous economic value, given OpenClaw's massive adoption. I'm arguing that because OpenClaw is installed on so many computers, uncovering the vulnerabilities in it offers enormous economic value, as opposed to letting them get exploited by malicious actors. I don't understand why this is controversial.