This looks like an underhanded comment about Openclaw. Tbf. I might be exactly that kinda person the site is referring to, but I have a really hard time seeing this thing as any more than one of those blips on the radar that gets forgotten about quickly again, e.g. more clubhouse (remember that?) and less dropbox.
It's already proven to not be just a blip on the radar. Even if everyone forgets about it today.
He got 221000 (as of today) GitHub stars, motivated thousands of projects, and immediately some of the largest companies on the planet attempted to hire him. And he settled on a job with the most popular AI company. The guy who invented the term "vibe coding" declared that tools like his were a new category above LLM agents.
But your comment is just dismissive.
I think the point of the HN love thing is that if founders take the tone of individual comments like yours or the overall HN response to heart, then that could be a fatal mistake.
If he had posted earlier and gone by comments like yours that dismissed it, then that would indicate he should not continue to put energy into it. Why would he have kept putting his time into something that the only thing worth saying about it is that it's going to be a blip on the radar?
You're describing almost verbatim what we're building at Octigen [1]! Happy to provide a demo and/or give you free access to our alpha version already online.
and if you're unlucky to live close to a datacenter, this could include energy and water? I sure hope regulators are waking up as free markets don't really seem equipped to deal with this kind of concentration of power.
We are certainly seeing citizens wake up to it. There was a proposal for a new datacenter to be built near where I live which was to be voted on, and a large majority of the people voted against it. No one wants higher power and water bills.
I do get a lot of value out of a project wide system prompt that gets automatically addded (Cursor has that built in). For a while I kept refining it when I saw it making incorrect assumptions about the codebase. I try to keep it brief though, about 20 bullet points.
Not the case with GPT-5 I’d say. Sonnet 4 feels a lot like this, but the coding and agency of it is still quite solid and overall IMO the best coder. Gemini2.5 to me is most helpful as a research assistant. It’s quite good together with google search based grounding.
GPT-5 is pretty decent nowadays, but Claude 4 Sonnet is superior in most cases. GPT beats it in cost and usable context window when something quite complex comes up to plan top-down.
What I find interesting is how much opinions vary on this. Open a different thread and people will seem to have consensus on GPT or Gemini being superior.
Well, last I checked Claude's webchat UI doesn't have LaTeX rendering for output messages which is extremely annoying.
On the other hand, I wish ChatGPT had GitHub integration in Projects, not just in Codex.
I've also had Claude Sonnet 4.0 Thinking spew forth incorrect answers many times for complex problems involving some math (with incapability to write a former proof sometimes), whereas ChatGPT 5 Thinking gives me correct answers with formal proof.
I think it depends on the domain. For example, GPT-5 is better for frontend, React code, but struggles with niche things like Nix. Claude's UI designs are not as pretty as GPT-5's.
This is also pretty subjective. I’m a power user of both and tend to prefer Claude’s UI about 70-80% of the time.
I often would use Claude to do a “make it pretty” pass after implementation with GPT-5. I find Claude’s spatial and visual understanding when dealing with frontend to be better.
I am sure others will have the exact opposite experience.
My experience is exactly opposite. Claude excelling in ui, and react. While gpt5 being better on really niche stuff, migth just be me better at caching when gpt5 halucinates as opposed to the claude4 hallucinations.
But after openai started gatekeeping all their new decent models in the api, i will happily refuse to buy more credits, and rather use foss models from other providers (I wish claude had proper no log policies).
I never implied it's useless. I don't have scientific data to back this up either, this is just my personal "feeling" from a couple hundred hours I've spent working with these models this year: GPT-5 seems a bit better at top-down architectural work, while Sonnet is better at the detail coding level. In terms of usable context window, again from personal experience so far, to me GPT-5 has somewhat of an edge.
Agreed. My experience is GPT5 is significantly better at large-scale planning & architecture (at least for the kind of stuff I care about which is strongly typed functional systems), and then Sonnet is much better at executing the plan. GPT5 is also better at code reviews and finding subtle mistakes if you prompt it well enough, but not totally reliable. Claude Code fills its context window and re-compacts often enough that I have to plan around it, so I'm surprised it's larger than GPT's.
Hypotethetically speaking, there could be a design office in Switzerland for these features that charges a crazy amount in IP
rights for every car sold by VW anywhere in the world.
reply