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

Grok Build is open source

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 730 posts

Re: Grok Build is open source

#181

Post by dijit »

solumunus wrote: post #159
dijit wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I use a shovel to kill a man, the shovel maker did not engage in intentionally crafting a weapon of war. How tools are used are a reflection of the people who use them, and I definitely sympathise that tools should have guardrails to not enable this, or at least detect it. But if a pedophile uses Whatsapp to groom a child; I don't go after Whatsapp for being a neutral service... I go after the pedophile.

If WhatsApp knew their platform was facilitating CSAM, and they were fully within their power to prevent this but chose not to - yes this would rightly draw criticism…

oh, we're just making shit up now because we don't like a company..

ok then.

Re: Grok Build is open source

#182

Post by accrual »

whimsicalism wrote: post #153
buremba wrote: post #118

I would recommend using https://pi.dev/ over Grok Build with your xAI subscription at this point

why pi over opencode? earnestly curious, trying to figure out what open solution people are consolidating on. (codex is also pseudo-open but contributions closed and nice)

Most of my harness experience is with Claude Code and Pi, a little bit of OpenCode.

I like how quick and snappy Pi is, it feels like a minimal harness, just enough to manage the agent and get out of the way. Earlier models also seemed to have an easier time working with the tools, e.g. GPT-OSS-20B is about a year old and had no trouble in Pi.

Re: Grok Build is open source

#183

Post by buremba »

whimsicalism wrote: post #153
buremba wrote: post #118

I would recommend using https://pi.dev/ over Grok Build with your xAI subscription at this point

why pi over opencode? earnestly curious, trying to figure out what open solution people are consolidating on. (codex is also pseudo-open but contributions closed and nice)

Opencode gives you better defaults and a Mac/Windows app for free but pi is much more extensible and portable.

Re: Grok Build is open source

#184

Post by croes »

Petersipoi wrote: post #163
croes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, why audit it when the agent can build a new one. Second, can you guarantee that an AI company can’t use its AI to hide malicious code from AI audits. Who if not an AI company could have such an expertise? I don’t trust a company that pollutes the air of other people with illegal gas turbines because it shows the value their profit over people‘s health

Nothing you said here can't be applied to literally any company on earth. And nothing you said here is even a new concern.

I doubt that every company could hide malicious code so well that AI can’t find it.

And who said it need to be new concerns? Are the old ones resolved and are they not enough?

Re: Grok Build is open source

#185

Post by afavour »

dijit wrote: post #134
bobsomers wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for generating an absolutely gargantuan amount of CSAM and non-consensual sexualized images, but yeah, exfiltrating data too.

If I use a shovel to kill a man, the shovel maker did not engage in intentionally crafting a weapon of war. How tools are used are a reflection of the people who use them, and I definitely sympathise that tools should have guardrails to not enable this, or at least detect it. But if a pedophile uses Whatsapp to groom a child; I don't go after Whatsapp for being a neutral service... I go after the pedophile.

Just as well Grok isn’t a shovel then, hey?

If a shovel manufacturer was notified numerous times that their shovel was being used for murder and they had the capability to disable using the shovel for murder while retaining all legitimate uses wouldn’t people question why they didn’t do it?

Re: Grok Build is open source

#186

Post by dijit »

jazzpush2 wrote: post #146
dijit wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I use a shovel to kill a man, the shovel maker did not engage in intentionally crafting a weapon of war. How tools are used are a reflection of the people who use them, and I definitely sympathise that tools should have guardrails to not enable this, or at least detect it. But if a pedophile uses Whatsapp to groom a child; I don't go after Whatsapp for being a neutral service... I go after the pedophile.

Ok, but what if all Whatsapp competitors explicitly banned the ability to groom children on their platform, but Whataspp didn't, and directly advertised it.

I find the premise of your comment completely incredulous.

I totally understand tribalism, and Elon and X aren't exactly well favoured. (not even by me)

But what you're saying right now is that they advertised the fact that they can create child pornography and deepfakes..

I simply don't believe it, unless you provide evidence.

Re: Grok Build is open source

#188

Post by aforwardslash »

dimgl wrote: post #12
SimianSci wrote: post #6

[flagged]

They made it open source. Are you just trying to be bad faith here? Isn't this what the community was asking for?

Reiserfs. A good example on how oss cannot save the product. There are others, but this is the first one that comes to my mind. If you use clearly unethical oss, are you just using oss or are you a part of the problem? Typically, oss purists take these into account.

Re: Grok Build is open source

#189

Post by avaer »

croes wrote: post #67
avaer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Apache 2.0. You can have your agents audit it if you want. What does this release have to do with "trusting" XAI?

First, why audit it when the agent can build a new one. Second, can you guarantee that an AI company can’t use its AI to hide malicious code from AI audits. Who if not an AI company could have such an expertise? I don’t trust a company that pollutes the air of other people with illegal gas turbines because it shows the value their profit over people‘s health

> Second, can you guarantee that an AI company can’t use its AI to hide malicious code from AI audits. Who if not an AI company could have such an expertise?

Any evidence for this conspiracy theory? It's not on anyone to disprove this claim.

> it shows the value their profit over people‘s health

Companies are chartered to make their shareholders value. To a first approximation, it's illegal for a company to "fuckit, we care about people's health" unless this is what the shareholders voted for (as opposed to making their shares valuable).

You can argue this is bad, but it isn't about XAI, it applies to every company you've heard of.

Post reply on HN