A lot of the *claws emphasize binary size and lines of code. I think for better or worse people treat codebase size as a proxy for "how much of the project is unsupervised, unmaintainable, buggy AI slop?"
There are many concerns and areas for improvement with open claw and other similar projects (continuous loop script with broad OS access that manages your agents and interfaces with a standard messaging app)
However, file size I have never seen on that list. I would rather offer for something that is even bigger in file size so it afford certain functionality like better security tighter permissions however it would do that.
File size is a legit property to keep in mind if your goal is to create an agent that runs on ESP32 boards. They don't expect you to run Zclaw on Mac Mini.
For something like OpenClaw yes, but not for Zclaw. I think the naming is more about riding the current wave of Claw-related interest rather than positioning it as competition or replacement for other clawies.
Zclaw is about running an agent in your embedded system.
There is the same divide starting to form that NFTs had back in the day. Tech bros instantly like if something has claw in the name, the rest of us will dismiss anything with that naming and philosophy as toxic slop culture. will be interesting to see how far this one will go.
“888 KiB Assistant” but the assistant itself is a multi terabyte rental-only model stored in some mysterious data center.
I'm getting "serverless" flashbacks.
It seems to support connecting to your own LLM on the same LAN
I fail to understand why 888 KiB matters if it's just a wrapper around a cloud api.
Have you seen OpenClaw's codebase? 680.000 LOC.
I care how big it is.
Because of resource-constrained environments, the primary deployment target seem to be microcontrollers. You can get ESP32 boards for pretty cheap.
A lot of the *claws emphasize binary size and lines of code. I think for better or worse people treat codebase size as a proxy for "how much of the project is unsupervised, unmaintainable, buggy AI slop?"
Because it means you can run it on an ESP32 which is a low power microprocessor package.
There are many concerns and areas for improvement with open claw and other similar projects (continuous loop script with broad OS access that manages your agents and interfaces with a standard messaging app)
However, file size I have never seen on that list. I would rather offer for something that is even bigger in file size so it afford certain functionality like better security tighter permissions however it would do that.
File size is a legit property to keep in mind if your goal is to create an agent that runs on ESP32 boards. They don't expect you to run Zclaw on Mac Mini.
What's the use case for running this on a tiny board? Isn't the whole point that it can use your computer for you?
For something like OpenClaw yes, but not for Zclaw. I think the naming is more about riding the current wave of Claw-related interest rather than positioning it as competition or replacement for other clawies.
Zclaw is about running an agent in your embedded system.
The examples seem to suggest it would be chatting with your home automation in natural language.
Me: "GPIO 5 can be active for a maximum of 100ms, then it needs to cool down for at least 1s. Otherwise the MOSFET is fried."
Zclaw: "GPIO 5 is active now, however the server is not responding so I'm awaiting further instructions."
Clicked on this expecting to see a crontab file.
The domain crashed and burned or something, hopefully this link is correct:
https://github.com/tnm/zclaw
1. why
2. fun
2. hype
There is the same divide starting to form that NFTs had back in the day. Tech bros instantly like if something has claw in the name, the rest of us will dismiss anything with that naming and philosophy as toxic slop culture. will be interesting to see how far this one will go.
Is Clawcoin a thing yet?
You know it.
https://phantom.com/tokens/solana/GzqSGShBevWmjSW3zwe8RmtUzb...