There's an observation.

It’s hard to give something like “vibe coding” a rigid definition, but I think we can all agree that it’s inversely correlated with "looking at the code". The more I examine the code while building, the less the activity is about vibes.

So, used this way, it's true that it's not a McDouble anymore, but it's also not so much of a vibecoding tool anymore either.

I just don’t find it believable.

I think that is sort of their point. There was one thing that you, I, and millions of others would call infringement, (scraping the whole Internet to train proprietary models) but the law deemed it "fair use", and they got away with it with impunity. Now there is this other thing that we'd all (easily) call infringement, and I understand why people doubt that this time will be any different.

We’ll see how the new CEO sees it.

It's a rather simple framework around an LLM, which actually was a brilliant idea for the world that didn't have it. It also came with its own wow effect, ("My agent messaged me!") so I consider some of the hype as justified.

But that's pretty much it. If you can imagine use cases that might involve emailing an LLM agent and get responses that share context with other channels and resources of yours, or having the ability to configure scheduled/event-based agent runs, you could get some use out of having an Openclaw setup somewhere.

I find the people who push insanity like "It came alive and started making money for me" and the people who label it utterly, completely useless (because it has the same shortcomings as every other LLM-based product) like Mr. "I've Seen Things. Here's the Clickbait" here, rather similar. It's actually hard to believe they know what they're talking about or that they believe what they're writing.