The concept of OpenClaw is boring to me because it doesn't actually feel like anything that we haven't either thought of before or that folks had prognosticated would come.
In a way, it's completely unoriginal. Bots talking with bots? Who could have possibly imagined that? Anyone who's read the 500+ books of Asimov would have already seen and digested this reality and the resulting consequences.
But most important to me is that Clawdbot doesn't fundamentally change or upgrade what I really want: Less decisions. At the end of the day, the result of all this I/O is still me, the meat, having to make a decision about the inputs and outputs. We can't quite get rid of decision fatigue and "ClownBot" just adds more noise to the signal that I'm desperate for.
Can ClownBot find me the best job? Perhaps. I still have to say "Yes" or "No" to the arrangement because I am still accountable to it. I'd still have to weigh the pros and cons and yes ClownBot will give me n-number of both but I still have to decide.
Can ClownBot find connect me with my future spouse? Sure. But, I still have to decide to say "Yes" or "No" and then do the diligence of understanding what it means. The same for stocks and anything of real importance.
Please tell me I'm wrong because it's not the future that I think we all wanted.
you're both right and wrong, answer is in the middle, openclaw is genuinely better but only in a small way, but also you are taking the improvement for granted here and that just depends on your perspective/technical depth
The technical depth isn't an issue in my case but consider the math of decision fatigue, perhaps. I think this might be the "middle" you're talking about. This will be terrible, but, let's try:
1. Let's say that a highly-productive human can make 100 decisions a day out of 1,000 I/O's available based on available time (24 hours) using their present toolkit and technology available.
2. OC comes into frame as a new toolkit and allows now 100,000 I/O's but the high-performant human still is limited 100 decisions a day? Why? Because 24 hours.
The constant (limitation) is the time available in the day. OC can present more I/O's but will never be able to overcome the biological and time-band limitations based on physics. Perhaps they can present the "best" 100 decisions, helping to prioritize them and eek out a bit more performance, but, the (meta?)physical limits still apply.
But who decides "best"? OC? Or the meat? And how would we (collectively, the OC and meat) decide? Well, they'd have to decide, thus taking away from the 100 currently available decisions per day.
🤔
I suppose "quality" decisions is on the table but that can also be just as hard to determine.
The concept of OpenClaw is boring to me because it doesn't actually feel like anything that we haven't either thought of before or that folks had prognosticated would come.
In a way, it's completely unoriginal. Bots talking with bots? Who could have possibly imagined that? Anyone who's read the 500+ books of Asimov would have already seen and digested this reality and the resulting consequences.
But most important to me is that Clawdbot doesn't fundamentally change or upgrade what I really want: Less decisions. At the end of the day, the result of all this I/O is still me, the meat, having to make a decision about the inputs and outputs. We can't quite get rid of decision fatigue and "ClownBot" just adds more noise to the signal that I'm desperate for.
Can ClownBot find me the best job? Perhaps. I still have to say "Yes" or "No" to the arrangement because I am still accountable to it. I'd still have to weigh the pros and cons and yes ClownBot will give me n-number of both but I still have to decide.
Can ClownBot find connect me with my future spouse? Sure. But, I still have to decide to say "Yes" or "No" and then do the diligence of understanding what it means. The same for stocks and anything of real importance.
Please tell me I'm wrong because it's not the future that I think we all wanted.
you're both right and wrong, answer is in the middle, openclaw is genuinely better but only in a small way, but also you are taking the improvement for granted here and that just depends on your perspective/technical depth
The technical depth isn't an issue in my case but consider the math of decision fatigue, perhaps. I think this might be the "middle" you're talking about. This will be terrible, but, let's try:
1. Let's say that a highly-productive human can make 100 decisions a day out of 1,000 I/O's available based on available time (24 hours) using their present toolkit and technology available.
2. OC comes into frame as a new toolkit and allows now 100,000 I/O's but the high-performant human still is limited 100 decisions a day? Why? Because 24 hours.
The constant (limitation) is the time available in the day. OC can present more I/O's but will never be able to overcome the biological and time-band limitations based on physics. Perhaps they can present the "best" 100 decisions, helping to prioritize them and eek out a bit more performance, but, the (meta?)physical limits still apply.
But who decides "best"? OC? Or the meat? And how would we (collectively, the OC and meat) decide? Well, they'd have to decide, thus taking away from the 100 currently available decisions per day.
🤔
I suppose "quality" decisions is on the table but that can also be just as hard to determine.