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

Grok 4.5

x.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Grok 4.5

#301

Post by dansquizsoft »

richardw wrote: post #268
SwellJoe wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is playing a different game. I don't really know what game they're playing, but they're not trying to beat Claude Code. They have coding capabilities and Antigravity, but I'd be surprised if it's much more than an afterthought. They're focusing on efficiency, models at the edge, human interaction, image and video, etc. in ways Anthropic, in particular, is not. Google wants its AI to be pervasive in everyone's…

If I had to summarise Google’s effort it would be: stay close but let the others burn themselves out. Position for the long game until you see something worth betting the company on. Apple similar, without the “stay close” bit.

This is 1000% not their (Google's) aim. The position they are in is due much more to their organisational laziness and incompetence than it is any grand strategy.

Re: Grok 4.5

#302

Post by smotched »

jesse_dot_id wrote: post #291

I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?

Can you name a model not doing that? openai & anthopic are a lot more aggressive in doing that.

Re: Grok 4.5

#303

Post by xbmcuser »

codemog wrote: post #107

Can someone breakdown to me how this makes any sort of economical sense? Spending billions and billions to have the 3rd best model while even the number 1 and 2 players already seem to struggle making a profit. What am I missing here? Not trying to go full Ed Zitron but this doesn’t make sense to me.

In my opinion they all are looking at AI as a software business where in reality it is more like a low margin hardware/commodity business.

Re: Grok 4.5

#304

Post by rsynnott »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #243
tonyhart7 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that SpaceX have tremendous potential, the problem is that we account future potential that maybe not happening in 20 - 50 years

> future potential Starlink doesn't qualify? Because that's a practically unbelievable track record. It's easy to say it's obvious, but it was only obvious in hindsight (or perhaps to Elon, but I think the reason that it was successful was actually more about him just being relentless) I'm not an Elon acolyte, but as with his other enterprises (SpaceX, Tesla), he succeeded where others (Irridium etc) repeatedly faile…

https://www.ookla.com/articles/ireland-national-broadband-pl...

> The pattern is unambiguous. In townlands still unserved by mid-2026, LEO provider Starlink has grown relentlessly and now accounts for 14.3% of fixed samples, approaching one in seven. In townlands where fiber arrived in 2021 and 2022, Starlink’s share has remained below 2% for five years, with no growth despite the same marketing, pricing, and availability.

(The context is that Ireland has spent the last six years building a fibre network for every rural premises in the country, which is now almost done; it will be complete late this year or early next.)

The problem for Starlink is, it works okay as a business model... Until fibre arrives. Then it's dead. So, long-term, Starlink's market is, essentially, countries which are too poor to do a rural fibre rollout (and bear in mind that it has become much cheaper to do so). Like, what's the bull case for Starlink? In a decade, you've got to assume that areas unserved by fibre won't really be a thing in the developed world.

Re: Grok 4.5

#305

Post by reissbaker »

codemog wrote: post #107

Can someone breakdown to me how this makes any sort of economical sense? Spending billions and billions to have the 3rd best model while even the number 1 and 2 players already seem to struggle making a profit. What am I missing here? Not trying to go full Ed Zitron but this doesn’t make sense to me.

Previously they were a distant fourth. They're not going to single-shot catch up to OpenAI or Anthropic, but they moved up the ladder one rung.

In the short term labs are not profitable, although supposedly Anthropic is close. But Amazon was also famously unprofitable for many many years, and then won huge. Current profits or lack thereof are not necessarily important to investors: what's important is they believe in your future potential profits.

In this case, Elon clearly believes much of the economy will be run by AI in the future, and the economic value of a token will rise faster than the cost of generating the token — including the amortized cost of training the model to produce that token. Thus he is building a lab to train models and charge for inference of those models, and — he believes — it will eventually become profitable even if it isn't now.

You may or may not agree with him (and you may or may not agree he's capable of beating Ant/OAI), but current profits aren't a great indicator of whether he believes future profits are attainable. Tesla and SpaceX were also very unprofitable, until they weren't.

Personally I agree with him that there will be massive profits in the future, although I am not as confident in his ability to beat Ant/OAI, at least given his recent difficulties in retaining researchers.

Re: Grok 4.5

#306

Post by theplumber »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #88

(from Cursor's blog) > Training included trillions of tokens of Cursor data which capture a wide-range of user interactions with codebases and software tools. This dataset lets the model learn both from existing software as well as developer-agent interactions, capturing how developers work and how agents interact with their environments. This is what the big money was for. Cursor is the first big player that had rea…

Well Microsoft has GitHub and Visual Studio and has no good coding model

Re: Grok 4.5

#307

Post by sajithdilshan »

codemog wrote: post #107

Can someone breakdown to me how this makes any sort of economical sense? Spending billions and billions to have the 3rd best model while even the number 1 and 2 players already seem to struggle making a profit. What am I missing here? Not trying to go full Ed Zitron but this doesn’t make sense to me.

That is the whole purpose of research. You could have put the same argument for any breakthrough technology, like why spend billions on something new when you have XYZ already.

Re: Grok 4.5

#308

Post by servo_sausage »

jesse_dot_id wrote: post #291

I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?

All the major models censor and filter, most just take mainstream silicon valley corporate as "neutral".

Uncensored models tend to follow Tay's law.

Re: Grok 4.5

#309

Post by jspaetzel »

jesse_dot_id wrote: post #291

I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?

How's this going with the rest of the models?

Re: Grok 4.5

#310

Post by gavinray »

xnx wrote: post #75

With each release from the the other major labs, it becomes harder for Google to tell a compelling story about Gemini 3.5. Edit: Gemini 3.5 Pro . Expectations grow with each day it is not released.

I have paid personal subs to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Gemini

For science (primary biology/pharmacology) questions, Gemini 3.1 Flash Extended produces the answers I _personally_ find "best", in terms of content, phrasing, and formatting.

Post reply on HN