That is good news for Grok team. However, most of the time cost comparing to the result is secondary, and better results and conclusions can come from mixing AI brains together.
Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
201–210 of 472 posts
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#202[flagged]
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#203Why is Grok so much cheaper than Claude or GPT?
The answer is simple: They're willing to burn money faster than the others.
Nobody's profitable in this space, they can price it however they want as long as investors keep pouring money in. And SpaceX just got a lot of money poured in.
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#204Cursor, since Grok 4.5, has had an incredible deal for frontier level models, their subscription now goes way further than OpenAI or Anthropic. Even on their lower tier plans you can use a lot tokens on their of their first party models (Grok and Composer) and not really run out comparatively. Combine them with an orchestrator and implementor type setup and it goes even further.
When I last used Cursor their subscription covered usage of ~$20 per month. Have they switched to a subsidized subscription model like ChatGPT and Claude?
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's much faster, so if you're not doing something cutting-edge, or you're doing the planning yourself and just using the LLM for implementation, the speed benefit outweighs the extra smarts of Fable/Opus5/Sol.
Is there a good way to auto switch between models for planning/implementation?
In most coding harnesses you can just instruct the agent to do so. When using Fable, I often say things like:
> Save your context. Always use a subagent (Opus 5 or GPT 5.6) for performing the implementation and then review the work yourself. You are the orchestrator and coordinator it’s up to you to ensure a cohesive final result.
I’ve done more or less the same thing with other agents/versions but with Fable consuming usage credits/tokens so quickly I do it more regularly than usual. I know people who will specify Composer (to my chagrin) as the implementing agent.
Addendum: this really goes a long way, and I can use a single chat session for days before I get into the context danger zone and need to compact/summarize.
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
But can you trust any number or metric coming out of SpaceX given everything? Also you mean their own compute like the illegal data centre turbines ? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk...
Now do Anthropic's copyright fines.
Now find someone who cares about or respects copyright law.
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#207Reading the SWE bickering back and fourth in this thread about Claude vs Grok reminds me of IE vs Netscape bickering way back when.
Netscape 4 Lyf
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really does. I felt like I could have spent $1000+ api token on claude for the amount of work on my $30 grok subscription.
I'm really not burning tokens fast enough. I use Claude a lot, daily, and have yet to hit my a ceiling with my Max/100 subscription. Maybe because I like to verify its outputs and spend a lot of time iterating to get better outcomes. Presumably if I just let it "do its thing" I'd burn more tokens and "get more done" but I'd lose my grasp on what's in the code base.
Big same here with Claude but I’m on the $200 sub. I let Fable run for roughly 4 hours and still didn’t hit the session limit. I suppose if I was running more in parallel it would be easier to hit, but I’m not particularly good at focusing on more than one thing at the same time (even if I’m waiting on an agent to do the work).
Re: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
#209[flagged]
Interestingly, deleting this line "fixed" it: >The response should not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated. Interestingly, "politically incorrect" is a double negative that simplifies to "true".
Not sure if you are memeing since this is an Elon quote...
> Interestingly, "politically incorrect" is a double negative that simplifies to "true".
Only if you like generic Twitter quips, logical fallacies and ignoring context for anything remotely nuanced.