| ▲ | pxc 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Could this be a bit of a Dropbox moment? What it adds is making this kind of thing easy for normies, even if it's neither the best way to do things nor very difficult for hobbyists to do using existing tech. Maybe it's the wrong approach, maybe what people really want is more deterministic software that they use agents to help write. But this kind of thing can maybe serve as a prototyping phase for that. Perhaps in the future, people's assistants will offer to "solidify" frequently used workflows into software that minimizes or eliminates the LLM's role. For existing Claude Code users, its like "please just skip to that step! its cheaper and more secure and more reliable". But to many people who are interested in automation, perhaps that seems out of reach as a first step. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | anticorporate 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That's actually the best hypothesis I've heard to date. My immediate reaction to anything someone says they're using OpenClaw for is "That's great, but it would have taken the same amount of effort to ask your LLM to write a script to do the same thing, which would be better in every possible way." My approach to automation projects is just about the polar opposite of something like OpenClaw. How can I take this messy real-world thing and turn it into structured data? How can I build an API for the thing that doesn't have one? How can I define rules and configuration in a way that I can understand more about how something is working instead of less? How can I build a dashboard or other interface so I can see exactly the information I want to see instead of having to read a bunch of text? It wasn't really until people started building things with coding assistants that I even saw the value in LLMs, because I realized they could speed up the rate at which I can build tools for my team to get things OUT of chat and INTO structured data with clean interfaces and deterministic behavior. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | SunshineTheCat 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No, Dropbox had a defined use case and solved a particular problem. I was a fan of Dropbox when it game out because of that fact. OpenClaw does not serve a particular problem. When/if it does, I will happily use it. But no, the two couldn't be more different. You'll notice, yet again, in your very message you failed to mention one specific use case of OpenClaw. If you asked me the same about dropbox when it first came out, I would've said, duh it helps me keep my files synced between devices. There is no such thing with OpenClaw. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||