981–990 of 1001 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grok is the #1 uncensored easily-available model, and it's also tightly integrated with Twitter.
Is uncensored a selling point? What do people use uncensored Grok for (like, real use cases) that they can't or won't use other LLMs for? Literally the only thing I can think of is generating bad porn of unconsenting people.
It seems to be extremely economical - 4x better reasoning efficiency compared to Opus while being priced at $2/$6. For comparison, GPT 5.4 is $2.5/$15, GPT 5.5/5.6 are $5/$30, Opus 4.8 is $5/$25, Fable is $10/$50. And by benchmarks (unless they gamed them), seems to be at around Opus 4.7 level, which is what Elon mentioned in https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2074911038286295049 . I guess the Cursor data was very useful.
However, the fact that they finally have a strong post-training and RL setup bodes well for future releases. They certainly are not compute-constrained anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh ffs. Just like I would much rather drive a Chinese car than a Tesla I’d much rather use a Chinese model than an X one. That’s just where we are now. Whether it’s good at anything at all doesn’t interest me. It could match Fable at 1/10th the cost and I wouldn’t send a cent their way. I’m a hardcore nerd. But I won’t let a discussion about X, Grok et.al ever focus on anything technical.
>But I won’t let a discussion about X, Grok et.al ever focus on anything technical. Highlighting this sentence, because it exemplifies so much of the contemptable behavior in this thread.
First impressions: - Very fast, easily beats GPT 5.5/Opus 4.8/GLM 5.2 because of higher t/s (around 90?) and very high token efficiency - Very good price, no contest vs GPT and Opus which are very overpriced if you pay API costs, and probably cheaper than GLM 5.2 when you take into account the token efficiency. - Will take quite a while to get a feel for how smart it is, but it's definitely good, I'd say in the same…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I have read, their pre-training team is much better than anyone else. For OpenAI, their post-training team is better. And apparently OpenAI has consistently struggled at training a bigger model than GPT 4 level
I’m a VP Eng — the backend team I manage strongly prefers CC and Opus. The Android team I manage strongly prefers Codex and GPT 5. I’m personally not sure that the answer doesn’t just come down to stylistic differences in prompting and ergonomics in the harness. The folks that prefer Codex seem to get better one-shot results, whereas those that prefer CC are doing more iterative prompting. At any rate, I don’t think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now if they could have an "equivalent" to Claude's $100 plan with similar compute limits. I have the $40 a month version of Grok and I get a max of like 8 hours of "non-stop" Grok Build coding, per month.
You get "Grok Build" (the CLI) that uses the Cursor and/or Grok 4.5 models when you buy SuperGrok, which is like $300/year. I don't know if there is a feature-to-feature comparison by anyone on this, but you can get access to these models with unmetered tokens with SuperGrok.
Could you support this statement with an official reference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow you have it 100% backwards. Grok is the only one that's not trained to be extremely biased. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/0...
This. It's like people collectively forgot about the "misgendering worse than thermonuclear war, founding fathers were black" stuff. Always go for Grok first for political questions. Other models have such a bad history of being so crudely aligment-hacked, I'd feel like a fool trying to get an impartial answer out of them on some political figure for example.
Other models are designed to do real work and their creators are concerned that the inherent racism and biases they were trained on from internet content will end up in said real work, so they require additional alignment to filter that junk out.
I can't think of a time where I've ever asked an LLM for it's political opinion, but if you're so concerned about asking your LLM political questions it might be worth getting multiple opinions (and some from human experts and literary sources) anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone has to know. Would be nice if an insider would drop some hints so that the open-source space could make some good progress.
Nobody has to actually know the secret of their own success, especially not relative success to equally-secretive near-peers. Same as with rich person autobiographies: even when they tell you what they think it is, they can't see the path not travelled.