[BeetleB]

> 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!

[operatingthetan]

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.

[wat10000]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Status quo has nothing to do with it.

[operatingthetan]

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.

[wat10000]

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

[operatingthetan]

Think more deeply about this. https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/professor-jame...

[wat10000]

What a bizarre article. The morality of recreational torture is not a matter of factual correctness. Burden of proof is not a concept that makes any sense when there’s a disagreement over morality. You can make arguments for your position and those arguments may involve factual claims which can be proven or disproven, but the underlying morality can’t.

And then it ends with that sudden left turn into denouncing atheists as inherently irrational and evil. WTF?

Congratulations on bringing an argument so terrible that I’m actually more convinced of my position after having read it than I was before.