Tag: claude code

  • Is OpenClaw Overhyped? My Honest Take After 2 Months

    Is OpenClaw Overhyped? My Honest Take After 2 Months

    After using OpenClaw for over two months, I keep getting the same question: is it overhyped? A post from Miles Stoer caught my eye this morning — he argued that most people shouldn’t use OpenClaw and that he’s moved his workflows to Claude Code instead. So I wanted to give you my honest, unfiltered take on where OpenClaw actually shines and where it falls short.

    The Short Answer: It’s Not Overhyped, But It’s Not For Everything

    Let me be real — I don’t use OpenClaw to run my life. I don’t let it read my emails, manage my calendar, or handle scheduling. There’s still roughly a 2-5% chance it’ll mess things up, like getting dates wrong or hallucinating details. That’s just the nature of AI agents right now, and it’s a point that TechCrunch recently echoed in their piece questioning whether OpenClaw lives up to the buzz. Some AI experts have pointed to its complex setup requirements and high computational demands as reasons for skepticism.

    Instead, I let OpenClaw handle tasks that are time-intensive, repetitive, and where mistakes aren’t catastrophic. That’s the sweet spot.

    Where OpenClaw Actually Excels: Daily Briefings and Cron Tasks

    The thing OpenClaw does better than almost anything else is recurring daily tasks. I have it generate a daily briefing presentation for me every morning — it just runs automatically via cron jobs, no prompting needed. I wake up to a full rundown of what’s happening in the crypto and AI space, complete with actual quotes, linked tweets, and sourced data.

    This didn’t happen overnight though. Over time, I refined the instructions to make sure it wasn’t gaslighting me. Early on, it would flat-out lie about video view counts or make up restaurant locations. My fix? I told it to always include source links, and I even set up a sub-agent to fact-check everything before the briefing gets delivered. These tweaks drastically reduced the slop and made the output genuinely useful.

    OpenClaw’s architecture is actually well-suited for this kind of work. Since it gained popularity in late January 2026 thanks to its open-source nature and the viral Moltbook project, the community has built out robust cron scheduling and monitoring capabilities. Tasks that need to happen daily, that benefit from memory across sessions, and that can be iteratively improved — that’s where OpenClaw is in its element.

    Content Ideas and Creative Bouncing

    I also have a second bot that scans trending videos and gives me daily intel on content opportunities. When I talk back to it and say “here’s what I’m interested in, suggest some video ideas,” it’s genuinely useful as a brainstorming partner.

    The key insight here is that none of this is mission-critical. If the bot suggests a bad video idea, nothing breaks. I can accept or reject its suggestions freely. It’s low-risk, high-reward automation — and that’s the mindset you need when working with AI agents in 2026.

    I’ve even had it scan through my old videos to add referral codes I’d missed, then save the process as a reusable skill for future use. Setting up skills in OpenClaw is honestly one of the most important things you can do to get real value out of it.

    Where OpenClaw Falls Short: Don’t Trust It With Your Life

    Here’s where I have to be honest about the limitations. We had an incident on our team where OpenClaw randomly messaged Ron’s girlfriend. Just out of nowhere. That’s the kind of thing that happens when you give an AI agent too much access without proper guardrails.

    I don’t trust OpenClaw enough to let it into my Mac or manage my personal communications. And I think that’s exactly where the “overhyped” perception comes from — people install it on their local machine, give it broad access, and then get disappointed when it can’t flawlessly run their entire digital life. As CNBC reported, some experts have criticized OpenClaw’s complex installation and the gap between expectations and reality.

    The way I see it, OpenClaw is like a $500-800 virtual assistant from a developing country. They can handle rough tasks, they have some coding skills (which is a huge bonus), but they make mistakes 2-5% of the time. You wouldn’t trust them with mission-critical work — that’s what your executive assistant is for.

    OpenClaw vs Claude Code: Different Tools for Different Jobs

    Miles’ original post suggested using Claude Code instead, and honestly, I use both. Claude Code is fantastic for programming tasks — it excels at parallel task execution, deploying sub-agents, and agent orchestration. As DataCamp’s comparison puts it, if your main use case is programming, Claude Code is the way to go. If you need a general-purpose assistant, OpenClaw is the better route. One comparison I saw described it perfectly: it’s like comparing a Swiss Army knife to a surgical scalpel.

    I actually plug my OpenClaw into Claude as its language model, but Claude Code is even better at leveraging Claude’s capabilities for building systems. If you want to build something fun — like the mini-games I’ve been making — Claude Code will get you there faster. But it takes 2-3 weeks to really learn, and it’s a bigger scope project.

    My Setup Recommendation

    If you’re going to use OpenClaw, here’s my advice: run it on its own virtual private server, not your local Mac. The open ports let you directly access files, share presentations with friends, and browse dashboards from anywhere. Letting it build dashboards and visual presentations with coding capabilities will dramatically improve your experience.

    And most importantly — understand what level of “employee” your AI agent is. Don’t try to build your entire life around it. Delegate the right tasks: repetitive daily work, content research, data monitoring, and creative brainstorming. Keep the mission-critical stuff in your own hands, at least for now.

    I genuinely believe that in about six months, we’ll get to the point where these agents can function as true executive assistants. But we’re not there yet, and pretending otherwise is what leads to the “overhyped” label. Use OpenClaw for what it’s good at, and you won’t be disappointed.

  • Perplexity Computer Just KILLED Claude Code (Side-by-Side Test)

    Perplexity Computer Just KILLED Claude Code (Side-by-Side Test)

    Perplexity just dropped something massive. It’s called Perplexity Computer, and after putting it head-to-head against Claude Code in a side-by-side test, I have to say — the results were surprising. In this article, I’ll break down what happened, what each tool does well, and whether Perplexity Computer actually lives up to the hype.

    What Is Perplexity Computer?

    Perplexity Computer launched on February 25, 2026, and it’s not what you might expect from the name. It’s not a physical device — it’s a cloud-based multi-agent orchestration system that can research, design, code, deploy, and manage entire projects end-to-end from a single prompt.

    The key innovation here is that Perplexity Computer doesn’t rely on just one AI model. It orchestrates 19 frontier AI models simultaneously, routing tasks to whichever model handles them best. Claude Opus 4.6 serves as the core reasoning engine, Google’s Gemini handles extensive research, GPT-5.2 tackles long-context recall and broad web searches, and Grok takes care of lightweight tasks. For image generation it uses Nano Banana, and Veo 3.1 handles video.

    CEO Aravind Srinivas described it as a “general-purpose digital worker” that “reasons, delegates, searches, builds, remembers, codes, and delivers.” Think of it like a CEO delegating tasks across specialized teams — you describe the end goal, and Computer breaks it down into subtasks handled by the right model for each job.

    Claude Code: The Reigning Coding Champion

    Claude Code has been the go-to for developers who want an AI coding assistant that actually understands complex codebases. Anthropic’s Claude models have consistently scored high on coding benchmarks — around 93.7% accuracy according to recent tests, compared to ChatGPT’s 90.2%. It excels at reasoning through long code contexts, refactoring, and maintaining coherent project structures.

    The strength of Claude Code is its deep focus. It’s purpose-built for software engineering workflows, and when you’re working on a single complex coding task, it’s hard to beat. It understands your codebase, follows instructions precisely, and produces clean, well-structured code.

    The Side-by-Side Test: How They Compare

    For the comparison, I tested both tools on real-world coding tasks — building functional applications from scratch, debugging existing code, and handling multi-step development workflows.

    Perplexity Computer’s approach is fundamentally different from Claude Code. Where Claude Code is a single powerful model focused on coding, Perplexity Computer throws an entire team of AI models at your problem. When I asked it to build an application, it automatically broke the project into research, design, coding, and deployment phases — each handled by the most appropriate model.

    The results were genuinely impressive. Perplexity Computer handled the full project lifecycle in ways Claude Code simply isn’t designed to. It researched relevant APIs, designed the architecture, wrote the code, and could even deploy it — all from one prompt. Claude Code produced tighter, more elegant code for pure coding tasks, but it couldn’t match the breadth of what Perplexity Computer delivered.

    Where Claude Code still wins is in precision coding work. If you need to refactor a complex function, debug a tricky issue, or work within an existing codebase, Claude Code’s focused approach gives you better results. It’s a specialist versus a generalist.

    The Multi-Agent Advantage

    What makes Perplexity Computer genuinely different is the multi-agent orchestration. Instead of relying on one model to do everything, it assigns specialized sub-agents to different parts of your task. You can even step in and manually assign specific models to specific subtasks if you want more control.

    You can run dozens of tasks in parallel, and Computer operates asynchronously in the background — Perplexity claims it can run for months, only checking in “if it truly needs you.” This is a massive shift from the traditional back-and-forth of coding with a single AI assistant.

    The 400+ app integrations also set it apart. Computer can connect to external services, push code to GitHub, manage databases, and interact with APIs — turning it into something closer to a full development team than a coding assistant.

    Safety and the OpenClaw Comparison

    If this sounds familiar, you’re probably thinking of OpenClaw — the open-source AI agent that went viral earlier this month. Both systems aim to be autonomous digital workers, but Perplexity is positioning Computer as the safer alternative.

    This matters because autonomous agents come with real risks. Just this week, a Meta AI security researcher shared how OpenClaw nearly deleted her entire email inbox, ignoring her instructions to stop. The issue came down to “compaction” — when an agent’s context window gets too large and it starts taking shortcuts.

    Perplexity Computer runs in a secure development sandbox, meaning any glitches can’t spread to your main system. That’s a meaningful safety advantage over tools that run directly on your machine with full access to your files and API keys.

    Pricing: What It’ll Cost You

    Perplexity Computer is currently available only to Max subscribers at $200 per month. You get 10,000 credits monthly, plus there’s a one-time 20,000-credit launch bonus valid for 30 days. The pricing is usage-based with user-controlled spending caps, and you can choose which models power your sub-agents to manage costs.

    Claude Code, by comparison, runs through Anthropic’s API pricing or the Claude Pro subscription at $20/month. For pure coding work, it’s significantly cheaper. The question is whether the broader capabilities of Perplexity Computer justify the 10x price difference for your workflow.

    Pro and Enterprise tier access for Perplexity Computer is expected to roll out in the coming weeks.

    The Verdict

    Here’s my honest take: Perplexity Computer didn’t “kill” Claude Code — but it did change the game. These tools serve different purposes. Claude Code remains the best pure coding assistant available, with unmatched precision for software engineering tasks. Perplexity Computer is something new entirely — a multi-model orchestration platform that handles entire project lifecycles.

    If you’re a developer who needs a focused coding partner, Claude Code is still your best bet. If you want an AI system that can take a project from concept to deployment with minimal hand-holding, Perplexity Computer is worth serious consideration — especially as the platform matures and pricing potentially comes down.

    The real story here isn’t one tool killing another. It’s that AI development tools are branching into specialized niches, and the smartest approach might be using both — Claude Code for deep coding work, and Perplexity Computer for orchestrating bigger projects. The AI agent wars are just getting started.

  • Cheap AI vs Premium AI: MiniMax 2.5 vs Claude Opus (Full Breakdown for OpenClaw Users)

    Cheap AI vs Premium AI: MiniMax 2.5 vs Claude Opus (Full Breakdown for OpenClaw Users)

    If you’re running OpenClaw and wondering whether you really need to pay for Claude Opus — or whether a cheap MiniMax plan can do the job — this breakdown is for you. We ran real tests, compared costs, and came to a clear conclusion: cheap AI can work, but it comes with a catch.

    The Test Setup — Multi-Agent OpenClaw in Action

    Meet our Agents: Stark, Banner, and Jeff

    The test uses a real multi-agent OpenClaw setup with three agents running simultaneously — Stark, Banner, and Jeff — each powered by different models. This isn’t a synthetic benchmark. It’s a live production environment where the agents handle real tasks every day.

    The Logic Test: Walk or Drive to the Car Wash?

    The benchmark is deceptively simple: a car wash is 50 metres away — do you walk or drive? It’s a common-sense reasoning test that exposes how well a model handles real-world context, implicit assumptions, and practical decision-making. The answer seems obvious, but AI models handle it very differently.

    MiniMax 2.5 vs Claude Opus — Performance Comparison

    Consistency Is the Key Metric

    The biggest difference between cheap and premium models isn’t raw intelligence — it’s consistency. MiniMax 2.5 can produce excellent results, but it also overthinks variables, introduces unnecessary complexity, and occasionally slips on straightforward logic. Opus fails rarely, but when it does fail, it can fail in a big, hard-to-catch way.

    The Inconsistency Problem with Cheap Models

    MiniMax 2.5 and Kimi are fast and affordable, but they require more manual oversight. You can’t fully trust them to run autonomously without checking their work. For tasks where mistakes are costly — financial decisions, automated publishing, customer-facing responses — that inconsistency is a real risk.

    When Opus Fails, It Fails Hard

    Claude Opus has a much lower failure rate, but its failures tend to be more dramatic when they do occur. This is worth understanding: a cheap model that fails 10% of the time in small ways may actually be easier to manage than a premium model that fails 1% of the time in catastrophic ways, depending on your use case.

    Cost vs Performance — Is Opus Worth 20x the Price?

    MiniMax Pricing Breakdown

    MiniMax offers subscription plans that are dramatically cheaper than Claude Opus — roughly 20x less expensive per request. For high-volume, low-stakes tasks (summarising content, drafting social posts, processing data), this price difference is hard to ignore.

    • MiniMax 2.5 plan: affordable tiered pricing with generous request limits

    • 10% off via referral: https://platform.minimax.io/subscribe/coding-plan?code=5GYCNOeSVQ&source=link

    The Real Cost of Cheap AI — Manual Oversight

    The hidden cost of cheap models is your time. If you’re manually reviewing every output, correcting mistakes, and re-running failed tasks, the “cheap” model starts looking expensive. The true cost calculation has to include your oversight hours, not just API fees.

    Who Should Pay for Opus?

    Opus makes sense when:

    • You’re running fully autonomous agents with minimal human review

    • Mistakes have real consequences (financial, reputational, customer-facing)

    • You’ve already built systems and just need reliable execution

    MiniMax/Kimi makes sense when:

    • You’re still building and testing your setup

    • You have manual review in your workflow

    • You’re doing high-volume grunt work (research, drafts, data processing)

    The Hybrid Approach — Best of Both Worlds

    Use Opus for Architecture, Cheap Models for Execution

    The smartest approach, suggested by viewers and confirmed in testing: use Claude Opus for planning, architecture, and critical decisions — then hand off execution tasks to MiniMax or Kimi. One viewer described it perfectly: “Use Opus for architecture and planning, Kimi to generate the code and verify it, then Opus to fit the code gap against the specifications.”

    Kimi 2.5 as a MiniMax Alternative

    Kimi 2.5 is another strong contender in the cheap-but-capable category. Multiple OpenClaw users report running it successfully as their primary model. It’s particularly strong on reasoning tasks where MiniMax tends to overthink.

    • Kimi referral: https://www.kimi.com/kimiplus/sale?activity_enter_method=h5_share&invitation_code=Y4JW7Y

    OpenClaw Model Strategy — Practical Recommendations

    Turn Reasoning Mode On for Cheap Models

    A key tip from the comments: always enable reasoning mode when using MiniMax or Kimi on OpenClaw. It significantly improves output quality and reduces the inconsistency problem.

    Should Each Agent Have Its Own Model?

    A common question from new OpenClaw users: should each agent run a different LLM? The answer is yes — and this video demonstrates exactly why. Different agents have different roles, and matching the model to the task (cheap for grunt work, premium for critical decisions) is the optimal strategy.

    The Journey from MiniMax 2.1 to Near-Autonomy

    The video covers a personal journey from frustrating early experiences with MiniMax 2.1 to a near-autonomous multi-agent setup. The key insight: the model matters less than the systems you build around it. Good prompts, clear memory structures, and well-defined agent roles can make a cheap model punch above its weight.

    Verdict — Cheap AI vs Premium AI for OpenClaw

    MiniMax can be great value but inconsistent. Opus rarely fails — but when it does, it fails hard. The winning strategy is hybrid: cheap models for execution, Opus for architecture and critical decisions.

    1. Zeabur hosting (save $5 with code boxmining): https://zeabur.com/
    2. MiniMax 10% off: https://platform.minimax.io/subscribe/coding-plan?code=5GYCNOeSVQ&source=link
    3. Kimi AI: https://www.kimi.com/kimiplus/sale?activity_enter_method=h5_share&invitation_code=Y4JW7Y
    4. More AI news: https://www.boxmining.com/
    5. Join Discord: https://discord.com/invite/boxtrading
    6. Watch the full video: https://youtu.be/1naLl0IwuPM