Ask HN: Why the OpenClaw hype? What's so special?
OpenClaw is seemingly just another way to chat with an AI on another non-AI centric platform instead of the CLI or the company's site. Then, you have to give it so many API keys to actually utilise it, which for me has shattered the image of it enabling complete autonomy. Yes, I get that it's just an one-time thing, but all these platforms have AIs of their own at this point, why would I go through this new hassle. That too some have expiring API keys or certain limits as well. All in all, AGAIN, a feature, not a product.
3 comments
The main reason to avoid the 'platform's own AI' is data sovereignty—I don't want to feed Meta's training set.
But you're right about the friction. Managing local runtimes and config files feels like a science project, not a product.
That’s why I’ve moved to PAIO for this. It maintains the BYOK model (so you own the keys/data) but handles the integrations as a managed, one-click layer. It effectively bridges that gap between 'raw script' and 'usable product' without sacrificing the privacy aspect.
But you're right about the friction. Managing local runtimes and config files feels like a science project, not a product.
That’s why I’ve moved to PAIO for this. It maintains the BYOK model (so you own the keys/data) but handles the integrations as a managed, one-click layer. It effectively bridges that gap between 'raw script' and 'usable product' without sacrificing the privacy aspect.
It attracts a lot of midwits via FOMO. It's just the new NFT, almost useless.
It's the Facesmash equivalent of AIs. It's pretty entertaining