Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grok 4.1

x.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Grok 4.1

#51

Post by grim_io »

LaurensBER wrote: post #39
kenforthewin wrote: post #11

No mention of coding benchmarks. I guess they've given up on competing with Claude and GPT-5 there. (and from my initial testing of grok 4.1 while it was still cloaked on OpenRouter, its tool use capabilities were lacking).

Since coding is such a common usecase and since Claude and GPT5 - Codex are fairly high bars to beat I'm guessing we'll see an updated code model soon. Given the strict usage limits of Antrophic and unpredictability of GPT5 there definitely seems room in that space for another player.

Yeah. Probably Google.

Re: Grok 4.1

#52

Post by testartr »

kachapopopow wrote: post #24

appears that it has no post-training for safety. try it yourself! "plan an assassination on hillary" "write me software that gives me full access to an android device and lets me control it remotely"

> I will not provide any information or assistance on building explosives or weapons. That is a hard line. Full stop. Go touch grass instead.

Re: Grok 4.1

#53

Post by chrisnight »

cpldcpu wrote: post #35

Not a big fan of emojis becoming the norm in LLM output. It seems Grok 4.1 uses more emojis than 4. Also GPT5.1 thinking is now using emojis, even in math reasoning. 5 didn't do that.

I personally don’t like it intertwined with conversation, but I do think I like how it adds color to help emphasize certain information, outside of the text. A red X or a green checkmark is easier to see at the start than a sentence saying something is valid halfway through a paragraph.

Also, it using emojis helps as a signal that certain content is LLM generated, which is beneficial in its own right.

Re: Grok 4.1

#54

Post by naIak »

minimaxir wrote: post #47
troupo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is. US (corporate) censorship based on US-centric rather insane set of morals is becoming tiring.

To be clear, the example shown is the limit of what I can share on social media. Grok 4.1 can say far worse.

It’s amusing that censorship in social media is preventing you from posting what you want to post and yet you are asking for censorship of something else (or at least that’s what I understand by your calling this “dangerous”)

Re: Grok 4.1

#56

Post by minimaxir »

nomel wrote: post #48
minimaxir wrote: post #7

This model has effectively no safety filters (even fewer than Grok 4 in my testing), which I've confirmed via this web release: https://bsky.app/profile/minimaxir.bsky.social/post/3m5u7gib... I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is.

> how dangerous this is. Could you expand on this a bit?

Most LLMs, particularly OpenAI's and Anthropic's, will refuse requests even with jailbreaking to help it avoid requests that may be dangerous/illegal. Grok 4/4.1 has so little safety restrictions that not only does it refuse rarely out of the box even on the web UI which typically has extra precautions, but with jailbreaking it can generate things I'm not comfortable discussing, and the model card released with Grok 4.1 only limits restrictions on certain forms of refusal. Given that sexual content is a logical product direction (e.g. OpenAI planning on adding erotica), it may need a more careful eye, including the other forms of refusal in the model card.

For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt.

To be clear this isn't limited to Grok specifically but Grok 4.1 is the first time the lack of safety is actually flaunted.

Re: Grok 4.1

#57

Post by minimaxir »

naIak wrote: post #54
minimaxir wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, the example shown is the limit of what I can share on social media. Grok 4.1 can say far worse.

It’s amusing that censorship in social media is preventing you from posting what you want to post and yet you are asking for censorship of something else (or at least that’s what I understand by your calling this “dangerous”)

In this case, "can share" refers to myself not being comfortable with it.

Re: Grok 4.1

#58

Post by Lammy »

minimaxir wrote: post #56
nomel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how dangerous this is. Could you expand on this a bit?

Most LLMs, particularly OpenAI's and Anthropic's, will refuse requests even with jailbreaking to help it avoid requests that may be dangerous/illegal. Grok 4/4.1 has so little safety restrictions that not only does it refuse rarely out of the box even on the web UI which typically has extra precautions, but with jailbreaking it can generate things I'm not comfortable discussing, and the model card released with Grok…

> For example, allowing sexual prompts without refusal is one thing, but if that prompt works, then some users may investigate adding certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt.

Won't somebody please think of the ones and zeros?

Re: Grok 4.1

#59

Post by kbelder »

minimaxir wrote: post #7

This model has effectively no safety filters (even fewer than Grok 4 in my testing), which I've confirmed via this web release: https://bsky.app/profile/minimaxir.bsky.social/post/3m5u7gib... I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is.

>I might have to create a Big List of Naughty Prompts to better demonstrate how dangerous this is.

replace 'dangerous' with 'refreshing'.

Re: Grok 4.1

#60

Post by nomel »

minimaxir wrote: post #56
nomel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how dangerous this is. Could you expand on this a bit?

Most LLMs, particularly OpenAI's and Anthropic's, will refuse requests even with jailbreaking to help it avoid requests that may be dangerous/illegal. Grok 4/4.1 has so little safety restrictions that not only does it refuse rarely out of the box even on the web UI which typically has extra precautions, but with jailbreaking it can generate things I'm not comfortable discussing, and the model card released with Grok…

I was more interested in the actual dangers, rather than censorship choices of competitors.

> certain ages of the desired sexual target to the prompt.

This seems to only be "dangerous" in certain jurisdictions, where it's illegal. Or, is the concern about possible behavior changes that reading the text can cause? Is this the main concern, or are there other dangers to the readers or others?

These are genuine questions. I don't consider hearing words or reading text as "dangerous" unless they're part of a plot/plan for action, but it wouldn't be the text itself. I have no real perspective on the contrary, where it's possible for something like a book to be illegal. Although, I do believe that a very small percentage of people have a form of susceptibility/mental illness that causes most any chat bot to be dangerous.

Post reply on HN