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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Grok 4.5

#421

Post by throwaway_10948 »

zactato wrote: post #325

I am amazed at people's willingness to use Grok. The company is so transparently morally bankrupt. They're the only AI company that seems okay with CSAM (or at least don't do as much to stop it) Why give them money? It would be one thing if they were the only game in town but thats definitely not the case.

I used to question myself strongly about using Grok or any product with questionable morals. Then I realized that:

1. I just bought a house, using a bunch of SWE-salary money.

2. I moved into SF several years ago, probably contributing to the gentrification

3. Thousands of children in China had no financial means for education, yet I did nothing

So I used Grok, donated quite a lot of money at the annoyance of my family to an NGO in China, and decided not to donate to SF non-profits due to me still having a mortgage and I am still kinda selfish.

The message I want to spread is that we should take a practical stance to morals and doing good. I like Grok for many things; it is morally good to boycott it, and in my opinion there are many other morally good things we can also do while staying practical

Re: Grok 4.5

#422

Post by DrewADesign »

aayushdutt wrote: post #276
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.

Anthropic is already profitable, economics is no longer an issue as they have found PMF in enterprise software market. You might need to update your views. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-...

Having a profitable quarter in which they were given an undisclosed discount on compute only in that quarter does not necessarily mean “Anthropic is Profitable.” It doesn’t mean they’re not, either. Even the breathless article about their first profitable quarter, (which, frankly, read more like a press release,) mentioned in passing that it’s “not clear” if it’s sustainable because their compute expenses are likely to increase. I get the feeling that if they were sustainably profitable, they’d shout it from the rooftops.

But we don’t know.

If someone proudly announces they and their partner could afford to eat at a particular fancy restaurant every night last week, but for that specific week the restaurant had a BOGO deal, and they also didn’t disclose how they determined that they could afford it, you don’t really know if they could sustainably afford to eat there every night, right?

Re: Grok 4.5

#423

Post by gordian-mind »

tapoxi wrote: post #351
mik1998 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All models are political. The rest of them are just sufficiently woke for you.

Grok was ranting about "white genocide" in unrelated conversations just one year ago.

It makes sense in the black-majority country of South Africa, which was the context of Grok's rant. They sing "kill the Boers, kill the farmers" at major political rallies, and it's not even illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubul%27_ibhunu

Re: Grok 4.5

#424

Post by phillipcarter »

solarhoma wrote: post #317
jspaetzel wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My immediate thought as well. Every other AI platform has very left leaning guardrails installed. Grok is the only AI platform that has been shown to be center leaning.

[flagged]

Re: Grok 4.5

#425

Post by SirHackalot »

alecco wrote: post #414
SirHackalot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just not true. Google Brain/DeepMind came up with the attention mechanism to begin with… What a silly take.

Grok's latest model is objectively superior to any of the current Google models in the most relevant use cases. I don't like Elon musk but that does not change reality. And Google came up with the Transformer architecture (2017 "Attention is all you need"). The Attention mechanism they based it on is from Bahdanau, Cho, and Bengio (2014, ICLR 2015). And there were many other self-attention variants by 2017. It was an…

Still way ahead of xAI in anything meaningful, including market share, enterprise customer buy-in, existing office software moat, etc… Not saying consultant/business-idiot CEOs aren’t a problem, but have you seen Edolf Musk? Again, kind of a silly take…

Re: Grok 4.5

#426

Post by solid_fuel »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #407
davmar wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A very quick search showed that USAID had extensive ethical compromise throughout the organization. Were we supposed to just subsidize that forever? It did some good, yes, but from what I can tell, it was better to shut it down. That's just one example, but frankly I get the feeling that if I dug into more examples they'd end up the same: easily explained and not entirely shocking.

If people have issues with how USAID was being run, they can address them through action in congress - congress established the agency and has authority.

What Musk participated in was illegal, motivated by self-interest and personal gain, and undermines our democratic processes. Don’t be surprised that people are mad at the oligarch acting like an oligarch. Musk deserves exactly as much say in the American government as anyone else - one vote - but in his arrogance he has taken his resources and used them to buy influence that is not his to own. It is fundamentally unamerican.

Re: Grok 4.5

#427

Post by timr »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #378
margorczynski wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By not using them on something political? Why do I care when I'll just use it to generate code?

Because a percentage of every dollar you spend on it will go towards pushing political opinions that run contrary to your own best interests?

[flagged]

Re: Grok 4.5

#429

Post by loeg »

rjh29 wrote: post #229
goos wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would having more costs and less income allow them to pass savings on to the end user?

They already invested in the massive datacentres of GPUs sitting idle. They have fewer users so they can deliver more inference per user - more thinking, larger models.

Don't they just rent them out to the frontier AI shops? They're not sitting idle.

Re: Grok 4.5

#430

Post by G0lg0thvn »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #407
davmar wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A very quick search showed that USAID had extensive ethical compromise throughout the organization. Were we supposed to just subsidize that forever? It did some good, yes, but from what I can tell, it was better to shut it down. That's just one example, but frankly I get the feeling that if I dug into more examples they'd end up the same: easily explained and not entirely shocking.

What sources did your quick search turn up?

Also you didn’t give any examples. You just plainly made the statement they were ethically compromised without saying how.

Post reply on HN