It's a tradeoff.

Generating a feature that is 90% correct in a tenth of the time is a reasonable tradeoff if you're trying to gain traction.

Generating a feature that is 90% correct in a tenth of the time, risking a multi-billion-dollar business, is a terrible tradeoff.

I think it's rather:

Small teams building continuously get to write features that are 90% correct in a tenth of the time.

Big enterprises get to write features that are 90% correct barely twice as fast, because all of the bottleneck lies elsewhere. They also spend more on AI per user because of the internal dynamics pushing people to adopt AI irresponsibly. They can correct the 10% of errors slower than small teams because of bureaucracy, increasing the cost of errors that show up in the product. Furthermore, they have less to gain from a given amount of speedup because they had plenty of engineering velocity anyway compared to small teams.

I don't think big enterprises will start winning from AI technology until AI truly can automate almost everything in a company and let said company outproduce competitors by burning tokens alone. That's nowhere near possible right now.

I don't think "90% correct in a tenth the time" is really the tradeoff. For a well-specified task, it's closer to 100% correct in 1/100th the time. But that undersells the time required to generate a good spec.

For under-specified tasks, it's not really accurate to talk about "correctness," because the machine isn't psychic. I would suggest that given a high-level feature request like "add streaming support" it's more about acceptance probability. In a well-structured and well-documented codebase, and a reasonably sized feature request, there might be an 80% chance it will generate something which is 100% acceptable. But there's about a 99% chance it will generate something which is acceptable after 1-2 revisions.

Claude Code already has that with channels. https://code.claude.com/docs/en/channels-reference

No need for OpenClaw.

Everyone is obsessed with speed.

But no one wants to go out of their house.

Social connections. Trust. Facetime. All matter more than ever.

Want a moatable software business? Know your customers on a personal level. Have a personal relationship. Know the people that sign the contracts, know their kids names, where they vacationed last winter, their favorite local restaurant.

Get out of the house.

Imagine if they were able to support iMessage.

Bluebubble is the way to go for this.

I've created an iCloud account for my llm. On my Mac, I created another user account, not an admin, just regular. Linked to the iCloud account. Installed Bluebubble.

And now I can chat with my AI via iMessage, via my Apple watch, or my homepods. It works beautifully.

Can you give an example of why this is better than the iOS Claude app?

South Carolina's beginning teacher salary is $42,500.

That's at 125% above the poverty level.

It's an un-invite. A hollow gesture.

Google's Gemini can read Google Docs directly.

They really don't want you to use another LLM product.

So they make the setup as difficult as possible.

I thought it was only me.

The autocomplete has a preference for proper nouns, even when they make zero sense .

The next suggested word is, at best, naive. Using the previous word, it would be clear that the subsequent suggestion would not be reasonable.

Not my experience at all.

It fails to be pro-active. "Why didn't you run the tests you created?"

I want it to tell me if the implementation is working.

Feels lazy. And it hallucinates solutions frequently.

It pales in comparison to CC/Opus.

I feel like this is exactly the use case for things like Hooks and Skills. Which, if you don't want to write them yourself, I get it. But I do think we can get the tool to do it; sounds like you want it doing that a little more actively/out-of-the-box?

Have you tried Opus 4.5?

It's an absolute workhorse.

It is so proactive in fixing blockers - 90% of the time for me, choosing the right path forward.

Offshoring support for financial data should be illegal.

Even if they find the inside individuals, how could anyone ever present a legal case?