Agreed, “if it can’t do everything it’s useless” is dumb on face value. I’m sorry if people don’t have more imaginative uses than checking their email, but I’ve gotten so much utility out of Openclaw without ever hooking it up to my email or a calendar.

It’s especially ridiculous responding to a blog about isolating these capabilities rather than dropping them. Those are basic security boundaries more than “restrictions.”

Open source tools are being snapped up by a company famous for reneging on its non-profit mission as soon as they sniffed some profit. Wow gee, imagine the cynicism.

Is pointing out the incorrect use of a point of order itself a point of order, or also a point of information?

Hooking it up to your todo app and texting your bot to manage things. Assuming you’re a heavy todo app person that could benefit from such things.

What do you mean by "manage things"? If you mean adding/updating/completing tasks, why not just do that directly in the app? Or do you mean that it will take your tasks and perform them for you?

How many 27” 5k 120hz+ high PPI are shipping right now? Reddit is particularly clowning on this for the refresh rate and completely ignoring the resolution.

This is a workstation-class monitor for people using these machines to make money. It's not a gamer toy monitor. People on Reddit don't get this. Apple's monitors are fantastic for those of us who use our computers to make money and need high quality. I am not playing video games on the same machine I use to make money.

Worth noting that these (and the LG with the same panel) aren’t shipping yet.

Are you really going to pretend that “impose their morals” is a completely value-neutral statement?

It certainly was intended as such. In a commercial transaction, that's what they're doing. They don't think it's moral to use their product in certain ways. They are thus prohibiting their customer from using it in such ways.

But, as I've said, I tend to agree with both Anthropic and the Administration's positions. What was wrong here is that rather than just terminating the contract, the Administration went nuclear.

It seems value-neutral to me. It's descriptive. Particularly for anyone who understands that different groups of people will legitimately disagree on many moral questions.

What would be the value neutral way to phrase it?

"Anthropic wanted its product to not be used in ways that contradict its ethics".

"Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here. And also, I don't think this is a situation that calls for moral relativism.

> "Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here.

Anthropic is not asking for their product to be used in line with their ethics, they are basically demanding it. I don’t necessarily think they are wrong but I don’t think we need to sugarcoat it either. It’s a demand and if it differs from what the DoW wants to use the tech for…of course its going to be in conflict. “Impose” is appropriate.

Desktop app.

Not being tied to Anthropic’s models and ecosystems, having more control over the agent, interacting with it from you messaging app of choice.

MIT seems to be pumping out a lot of the latter, particularly in the form of preprints making sweeping claims on very poor research design.