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

221–230 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#221

Post by ben_w »

throwawaypath wrote: post #190
babelfish wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and reality (+ biology) show that trans people have been around as long as humans have. They are a biological reality. Reality has a left-wing bias.

[flagged]

A trait I share with dictionary editors is a preference for linguistic descriptivism, so for me it's not a real problem that the common definition of "sex" and the scientific use are different.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't care at all about the categories humans create, so there's always some exception like the following two no matter how you try to cut reality at the joints with word definitions.

Even in humans, we see all kinds of interesting things going on. No reason to think this would be limited to downstairs and not in our brains, assuming there even are any differences between male and female brains (which is unclear to me, given vitamins and cortisol and how much sleep we get all impact our brains): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome#Fertili...

Beyond us, but in the same general category, biologists collectively chose to define "sex" in sexually reproducing creatures such that the one with the smaller gamete is male.

To illustrate how arbitrary this is: seahorses. The sex which gets pregnant has the smaller gamete, i.e. males get pregnant.

Re: Grok 4.6

#222

Post by bigstrat2003 »

jesse_dot_id wrote: post #134
0x70run wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

wonder if the world's richest man with no moral compass may pay botnet ranchers to astroturf on his behalf? we may never know!

Or, you know, people are sick of comment sections getting turned into political slap fights and react poorly to such.

Re: Grok 4.6

#223

Post by pmarreck »

Someone1234 wrote: post #81
hackernan9000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_a... And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal I think polarizing is a generous way of describing the problems. My organization has outright banned Grok, because we don't trust SpaceX to hold up to contractual agreements vis-a-vis data-privacy/training. That's the level of reputational damage we're talking about here…

So basically, nothing that actually affects working with it in August 2026. Got it.

Facebook has a far longer (and worse) laundry list of offenses and I'm sure you still use it. Or Threads, or Instagram.

> My organization has outright banned Grok

That's too bad, as it's currently the only model that won't consistently flag honest good-actor security questions, in my experience. So I'd ask you who you work for, but I wouldn't want to expose them to extra security scrutiny. ;)

Oh, there's also this: https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/grok-4-6-benchmarks-a...

Re: Grok 4.6

#225

Post by tavavex »

throwawaypath wrote: post #211
tavavex wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tay is not an LLM and was trained directly by its user base. Grok is trained by xAI that obviously wanted to turn it into a far-right talking point reciter but went just a little too far.

>Tay is not an LLM Moving goalposts now. We're talking about AI chatbots, which Tay clearly was. >Grok is trained by xAI that obviously wanted to turn it into a far-right talking point reciter but went just a little too far. Yet here are the others doing the same thing: https://cybernews.com/ai-news/germany-rage-bait-ai/

> Moving goalposts now.

What? I started the conversation, I set its boundaries. You're the one who's now trying to redefine it. I challenged the parent to show me a Marxist-Leninist AI, trained by an AI lab in a way that's equivalent to what xAI did.

I don't think you even have a point. The AfD doing the same thing doesn't say anything, and I never said there can only be one pro-Nazi AI in the world. I just dismissed Tay out of hand because 4chan users spamming a primitive chatbot with neonazi shit has very little relevance to the conversation about AI labs trying to influence their products to support extreme ideologies.

Re: Grok 4.6

#226

Post by zahlman »

jklmnopqrstuvw wrote: post #145

139 points in 50mins, why this news not in front page? got many downvotes?

To my understanding, there's a "controversy" filter on things that get a lot of comments relative to the vote count, especially if those comments aren't well received.

Re: Grok 4.6

#227

Post by BeetleB »

ralusek wrote: post #127
Someone1234 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_a... And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal I think polarizing is a generous way of describing the problems. My organization has outright banned Grok, because we don't trust SpaceX to hold up to contractual agreements vis-a-vis data-privacy/training. That's the level of reputational damage we're talking about here…

Can someone help me understand the deep fake controversy? That's like making photoshop illegal.

Think of it this way:

If you install Photoshop locally (ignoring that it's now cloud based), and made deep fakes locally - that's probably fine. If something goes wrong as a result, only you are liable. It's a general purpose tool - the tool author isn't liable.

If you instead set up a server, and let users create deep fakes on that server, then as the operator of the server you have some level of culpability.

AI safety is a tricky topic. At some level, having it is a pain. It's a general purpose tool! Why limit me? The answer is that I don't control the tool, and am not the one running the tool - the provider is. If I don't want AI safety, then I need to run the model on my own machines (or on rented servers).

If an LLM provider is going to sell the service on the strengths of the benefits you get from it, they should take responsibility for the downsides.

Re: Grok 4.6

#228

Post by breezybottom »

nailer wrote: post #195
qingcharles wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least Gates was honest that he "surrounded himself with smart people", and he has some really decent assembler code in his early years.

Elon Musk crediting his engineers: 1. "Please put in bold letters my quote that what people experience in the cars is the result of a large number of extremely talented engineers working very hard. Please give me the least credit." https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/15/tesla-autopilot-innovat... 2. "It is extremely important to emphasize that Tesla Autopilot is the work of 300 super talented engineers." https://cleant…

Your source for his intelligence is that his employees glaze him? Surely one of the smartest people in the world has written or published something groundbreaking, right? Surely his sole intellectual contribution isn't shitposting on Twitter?

Re: Grok 4.6

#229

Post by crustaceansoup »

leerob wrote: post #94
arrosenberg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the person you are responding to, but the fact that Grok is being used to generate a ton of CSAM and pornographic deepfakes isn't great!

(I work on Grok) This isn't allowed. CSAM / deepfakes are against our acceptable use policy.

Your company's owner was promoting the feature and joking about it, and called enforcement against it "fascism". CSAM generation kept up for weeks after the initial news articles, and as far as I can tell deepfake generation is still a feature. It's hard to take your AUP seriously here when you've seemingly done nothing technical to actually prevent the action.

Re: Grok 4.6

#230

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

ryandvm wrote: post #166
bm-rf wrote: post #164

Looks like the SpaceXAI api is adding a default system prompt to all requests. Annoyingly, the line about not mentioning these guidelines is superseding any instructions in the system prompt, causing the model to often refuse discussion regarding system prompts """ You are Grok, a helpful and maximally truthful AI built by xAI. Your purpose is to answer questions accurately, be helpful, and seek truth above all else.…

> * Do not provide assistance to users who are clearly trying to engage in criminal activity. I don't know what we want to call this, but in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science. Kind of amusing that we made it as far as we did as a species not really being able to explain how the human brain does it's most amazing tricks and then we just replicated it while still not really understanding…

> I don't know what we want to call this, but in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science.

Bit of a mouthful, but how about just calling it "auto-regressive language modelling".

Feeding it stuff to auto-regress on is obviously your main control vector.

Apparently RL-trained models like rewards too. PHB's can use "you've gotta work all weekend, but you'll get comp time when it's fixed".

Post reply on HN