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

Grok 4.6

x.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#51

Post by causal »

moomin wrote: post #45
causal wrote: post #23

Anyone else find it weird how within 2 months of Fable releasing all the major labs suddenly had Fable-level models? Trying to think of explanations: 1) AI researchers talk and change companies often, so techniques circulate. This feels implausible because training and shipping a new model ought to take longer than 2 months? 2) Distillation - also implausible for the reason above. 3) Benchmark hacking. AI companies h…

Yeah, I’m not convinced that there are any models as smart as Fable. Opus 5 definitely isn’t for all it has great benchmark scores. Fable displays judgement in a way I haven’t seen from any other model.

Yeah as models get better, valid benchmarks become more "trust me bro".

Re: Grok 4.6

#53

Post by gmac »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #26

As polarizing as grok is, it was basically inevitable for it to start being a real competitor given how much investment SpaceX made into its own inference capabilities. Seems if you are okay with it, there's no reason to use anything but the highest effort levels of some other frontier models for the price. I think Grok provides healthy competition to the other labs, though I do think they bank on groks reputation ma…

[flagged]

Re: Grok 4.6

#54

Post by itsdesmond »

nater5000 wrote: post #49

It's crazy that I'd literally trust a Chinese AI company with my data over anything Musk is involved with. Like, even if you don't care about (or even like) his politics and can look past how unlikable he comes off as, the damage he's done to his own reputation in this domain just makes using his products like this a no-go. He's literally so rich that he can get caught personally looking through chat sessions and it…

[flagged]

Re: Grok 4.6

#57

Post by causal »

logancbrown wrote: post #30
causal wrote: post #23

Anyone else find it weird how within 2 months of Fable releasing all the major labs suddenly had Fable-level models? Trying to think of explanations: 1) AI researchers talk and change companies often, so techniques circulate. This feels implausible because training and shipping a new model ought to take longer than 2 months? 2) Distillation - also implausible for the reason above. 3) Benchmark hacking. AI companies h…

Its possible no AI lab has any unique edge, and success is a combination of (a) having access to GPUs (b) having access to large amounts of data (c) know about the handful of techniques to build an LLM, of which nearly all are likely open source and documented in papers. So the cycle of growth is (a) and (b), get more GPUs and get more data and you have a better model.

GPUs might explain the remarkably concurrent timing. Data access doesn't really explain it unless all labs simultaneously got access to some treasure trove of data.

Re: Grok 4.6

#58

Post by jorl17 »

cjalmeida wrote: post #5

Fable-like intelligence, beats GPT-5.6-Sol on most benchmarks, cheaper than Kimi K3 on API and quite generous usage on Cursor subscription.

In my tests Grok 4.5 is definitely not Opus level. It is somewhere in between Sonnet and Opus, I'd say maybe a bit closer to Sonnet.

We'll see with 4.6.

Re: Grok 4.6

#60

Post by well_ackshually »

hackernan9000 wrote: post #48
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #26

As polarizing as grok is, it was basically inevitable for it to start being a real competitor given how much investment SpaceX made into its own inference capabilities. Seems if you are okay with it, there's no reason to use anything but the highest effort levels of some other frontier models for the price. I think Grok provides healthy competition to the other labs, though I do think they bank on groks reputation ma…

Curious - what is the main issue you find polarizing with grok?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN