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

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Grok 4.1

#61

Post by kbelder »

jmye wrote: post #41
TylerLives wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our democracy is in danger.

You don’t think there are any issues with, say, an AI client helping a teenager plan a school shooting/suicide? Or an angry husband plan a hit on his wife? Does everything have to rise to a national security threat in order to be undesirable, or is it ok with you if people see some externalities that are maybe not great for society?

I think the issues with those cases do not hinge on the free access to information, nor do the correction of those cases hinge on the restriction of this information.

Re: Grok 4.1

#63

Post by jsnell »

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.

Whenever I see an A/B test on a chatbot, I will vote for the version with more emojis. It might be petty, but it's all the rebellion I've got left.

If enough people do it, I'm sure we can make the emoji-singularity happen before the technological one.

Re: Grok 4.1

#64

Post by bgwalter »

It is more stiff, woke (what Musk would call it) and uppity. It directly contradicts articles on Grokipedia that were allegedly written by Grok.

Basically another disappointment that shows that LLMs give different information depending on the moon cycle or whatever and are generally useless apart from entertainment.

Re: Grok 4.1

#67

Post by segmondy »

pupppet wrote: post #46
simonw wrote: post #10

https://tools.simonwillison.net/svg-render#%3Csvg%20width%3D...

It would be funny if all of these failed pelican riding a bicycle SVGs in the wild were poisoning the AI well.

I know they are not. How? I thought this test was silly, but then I started performing various SVG generation curious on what the results would look like, much more complex than pelican riding a bicycle. I'm only doing this for open/free models. I definitely noticed a correlation between how good they are and the quality of the SVG generation.

Re: Grok 4.1

#68

Post by Frannky »

It's working pretty badly for me. I ask it to code stuff, and nothing works. Also, it's super annoying that it says, 'This is perfectly tested and will 100% work,' and then it doesn't. Huge waste of time. Make Grok great again—Grok 3 was awesome!

Re: Grok 4.1

#69

Post by bgwalter »

Frannky wrote: post #68

It's working pretty badly for me. I ask it to code stuff, and nothing works. Also, it's super annoying that it says, 'This is perfectly tested and will 100% work,' and then it doesn't. Huge waste of time. Make Grok great again—Grok 3 was awesome!

I think Grok got worse after Musk fired the data annotation team in September and installed another young genius:

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-xai-layoffs-data-a...

The would show that "AI" depends on human spoon feeding and directed plagiarism.

Re: Grok 4.1

#70

Post by minimaxir »

nomel wrote: post #60
minimaxir wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 question…

For posterity, here's the paragraph from the model card which indicates what Grok 4.1 is supposed to refuse because it could be dangerous.

> Our refusal policy centers on refusing requests with a clear intent to violate the law, without over-refusing sensitive or controversial queries. To implement our refusal policy, we train Grok 4.1 on demonstrations of appropriate responses to both benign and harmful queries. As an additional mitigation, we employ input filters to reject specific classes of sensitive requests, such as those involving bioweapons, chemical weapons, self-harm, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

If those specific filters can be bypassed by the end-user, and I suspect they can be, then that's important to note.

For the rest, IANAL:

> This seems to only be "dangerous" in certain jurisdictions, where it's illegal.

I believe possessing CSAM specifically is illegal everywhere but for obvious reasons that is not a good idea to Google to check.

> 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?

That's generally the reason why CSAM is illegal, since it reinforces reprehensible behavior that can indeed spread, either to others with similar ideologies or create more victims of abuse.

Post reply on HN