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

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Grok 4.1

#121

Post by packetlost »

devin wrote: post #50
packetlost wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that I would call them punctuation but they're certainly an interesting pictographic addition. I think they're great, but I too get irritated when not used judiciously.

To me, their usage is akin to to turning a plaintext file into rtf. Emojis do not look the same across platforms. Generated text should default to the generic IMO.

Plain text doesn't look the same across platforms for the same reason emojis don't, what's your point? At a technical level, it's no different than a plaintext doc with Chinese (or almost any other non-latin script) characters in it. It's still just a linear stream of text encoding with no specific structure beyond that.

Re: Grok 4.1

#122

Post by buu700 »

theshrike79 wrote: post #111
buu700 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, Grok is amazing at research, planning/architecture, deep code analysis/debugging, and writing complex isolated code snippets. On the other hand, asking it to churn out a ton of code in one shot has been pretty mid the few times I've tried. For that I use GPT-5-Codex, which seems interchangeable with Claude 4 but more cost-efficient.

Codex is good when you have a clear spec and an isolated feature. Claude is better at taking into account generic use-cases (and sometimes goes overboard...) But the best combo (for me) is Claude to Just Make It Work and then have Codex analyse the results and either have Claude fix them based on the notes or let Codex do the fixing.

Ah okay, that makes sense. I do a lot of planning with Gemini and Grok before the coding model ever gets involved, so that might be why I've never noticed a clear difference in output quality between GPT-5, GPT-5-Codex, and Claude 4.

Re: Grok 4.1

#123

Post by kbelder »

jmye wrote: post #114
kbelder wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, “we shouldn’t restrict things I like because they definitely don’t matter for… reasons.” I think the free access to that information in those cases is an exacerbating factor that is easy to control. That’s really not as complicated as you want to pretend it is.

I also advocate not restricting things I don't like, and would appreciate it if others returned the favor.

I agree that the principles are not complicated, though.

Re: Grok 4.1

#124

Post by kbelder »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #97
kbelder wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, the “guns kill people” argument that’s only uttered in the country that’s consistently ranked in the top 3 countries with the most gun related deaths. You would have a point if your vision for a self regulating society included easily accessible mental healthcare, a great education system and economic safety nets. But the “guns kill people” crowd generally rather sees the world burn.

The trouble is that censorship hastens the collapse of modern free and liberal civilization, it doesn't protect it.

And equating speech with guns is going to tie you up in some intellectual knots.

Re: Grok 4.1

#125

Post by torginus »

rsynnott wrote: post #117
torginus wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there ever been an AI based 'safety' incident? Other than it writing insecure code (and generally inaccurate info people put too much trust in) and reaffirming mentally unwell people in their destructive actions?

"Except for the AI safety incidents, has there ever been an AI safety incident?"

There's a marked difference between AI safety as it's portrayed (AI will let me make smallpox and TNT at home and hack the Pentagon), and AI disabling auth on an endpoint in code because it couldn't make it work with auth or reaffirming me that my stupid ideas are in fact brilliant.

AI companies want us to think AI is the cool sort of dangerous, instead of the incompetent sort of dangerous.

Re: Grok 4.1

#126

Post by Lammy »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #120
Lammy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't read the second part of my sentence. It's illegal to kill yourself, because doing so would deprive your government owner of some of its Human Capital, thus doing so is technically Criminal Homicide lol

Your greyed out comment history perfectly illustrates why it is futile to train an LLM mostly on 4Chan and Twitter messages: if it's bad for humans it's also bad for AI.

Haha, you don't have an actual response so you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem

"Again, when a man in violation of the law harms another (otherwise than in retaliation) voluntarily, he acts unjustly, and a voluntary agent is one who knows both the person he is affecting by his action and the instrument he is using; and he who through anger voluntarily stabs himself does this contrary to the right rule of life, and this the law does not allow; therefore he is acting unjustly. But towards whom? Surely towards the state, not towards himself. For he suffers voluntarily, but no one is voluntarily treated unjustly. This is also the reason why the state punishes; a certain loss of civil rights attaches to the man who destroys himself, on the ground that he is treating the state unjustly."

— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book Ⅴ http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html

Re: Grok 4.1

#127

Post by jmye »

kbelder wrote: post #123
jmye wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, “we shouldn’t restrict things I like because they definitely don’t matter for… reasons.” I think the free access to that information in those cases is an exacerbating factor that is easy to control. That’s really not as complicated as you want to pretend it is.

I also advocate not restricting things I don't like, and would appreciate it if others returned the favor. I agree that the principles are not complicated, though.

Would be hard to roll my eyes harder. I get not wanting to respond to the substance, but maybe I can help:

Do you advocate 'not restricting' murder? I assume not, which means you recognize that there's some point where your personal freedom intersects with someone else's freedom - you've simply decided that the line for 'information' should be "I can have all of it, always, no matter how much harm is caused, because I don't care about the harm or the harm doesn't affect me directly and thus doesn't matter. Thoughts and prayers."

Re: Grok 4.1

#128

Post by nomel »

minimaxir wrote: post #91
Beijinger wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not easy to take out/deactivate?

It is intrinsic to the model weights.

Which can trivially be modified with fine tuning. In this case, these de-censored models are somewhat incorrectly called "uncensored". You can find many out there, and they'll happily tell you how to cook meth.

Re: Grok 4.1

#129

Post by mlindner »

afavour wrote: post #36
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.

Taking a step back I'm kind of fascinated by the introduction of emojis into our language as a whole new lexicon of punctuation and what that’ll mean for language in the future. …but I’m still infuriated when I read a passage full of them.

There's a reason they were a Japanese language invention because the idea of "symbols = meaning" is not something that would have likely natively happened in English, at least to a wide extent. We would have still been writing :-)

Re: Grok 4.1

#130

Post by mlindner »

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"

And that's a good thing. I don't want AI playing overlord about what I can and can't search for. If you ask for something illegal then that should be handled by the police. Everything else is fair game. Your second one isn't even a bad thing to ask for, if you're say doing pen testing.
Post reply on HN