Comment by BeetleB
8 hours ago
> You offered nothing to support this.
You've got it inverted. My point is the people saying "You could have done that just as easily with ..." are the ones not supporting it. The commenter has already built that thing with OpenClaw. If someone is saying it could easily have done without it - well, demonstrate it!
It appears that you are confusing who has the burden of proof here. It is the one making the claim contrary to the status quo.
Hint: the status quo is not that openclaw is a tech that is magnitudes better than using LLMs without it.
Listing a bunch of things that are just normal LLM things as reasons why openclaw is great is not making that case.
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Status quo has nothing to do with it.
You should revisit the burden of proof then. Status quo is most certainly an important part.
Regardless, their claim was "OpenClaw is flawed, but the convenience is an order of magnitude higher than anything else."
And they attempted to shift the burden when I asked for substantiation.
4 replies →