What to understand of this whole story:

This is a vibe coded agent that is replicable in little time. There is no value in the technology itself. There is value in the idea of personal agents, but this idea is not new.

The value is in the hype, from the perspective of OpenAI. I believe they are wrong (see next points)

We will see a proliferation of personal agents. For a short time, the money will be in the API usage, since those agents burn a lot of tokens often for results that can be more sharply obtained without a generic assistant. At the current stage, not well orchestrated and directed, not prompted/steered, they are achieving results by brute force.

Who will create the LLM that is better at following instructions in a sensible way, and at coordinating long running tasks, will have the greatest benefit, regardless of the fact the OpenClaw is under the umbrella of OpenAI or not.

Claude Opus right now is the agent that works better for this use case. It is likely that this will help Anthropic more than OpenAI. It is wise, for Anthropic, to avoid burning money for an easily replicable piece of software.

Those hypes are forgotten as fast as they are created. Remember Cursor? And it was much more a true product than OpenClaw.

Soon, personal agents will be one of the fundamental products of AI vendors, integrated in your phone, nothing to install, part of the subscription. All this will be irrelevant.

In the mean time, good for the guy that extracted money from this gold mine. He looks like a nice person. If you are reading this: congrats!

(throw away account of obvious reasons)

> Those hypes are forgotten as fast as they are created. Remember Cursor?

of course--i use it every day. are you implying Cursor is dead? they raised $2B in funding 3 months ago and are at $1B in ARR...

I think Cursor is doing pretty well in the enterprise space. It seems much more useful than just throwing agents upon subagents on an unsuspecting task like Claude Code.