undefined | Better HN

0 pointsoperatingthetan1mo ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

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.

Status quo influences how good your proof has to be (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) but not who needs to bring it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

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.

Status quo influences how good your proof has to be (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) but not who needs to bring it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse