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

281–290 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#281

Post by Manfrednotfunny »

pmarreck wrote: post #223
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…

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…

You are only strawmanning around.

Apparently you are unable to coprehend that other peole have values.

Re: Grok 4.6

#282

Post by ActionHank »

_davide_ wrote: post #253
LPisGood wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

System prompts are more like suggestions than hard constraints.

i beg to differ, in an ideal world a system possibly is a binding law and high end models are starting to be really aligned to the exact system prompt. The instructions must be simple to follow, if you start doing complex rules it'll call apart, but I'll usually follow the stringer interpretation.

"I beg to differ, it is my opinion that reality should be different to what you have observed"

Re: Grok 4.6

#283

Post by tiahura »

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.

And doesn't embed a watermark

Re: Grok 4.6

#284

Post by nomilk »

cheesecakegood wrote: post #263
nomilk wrote: post #43

Tangental, but has anyone else noticed grok's voice mode got stupid and terse ~2 weeks ago? I've absolutely loved grok's voice mode since it came out (incredibly useful for brainstorming on walks and helping conceptualise and get the verbiage for expressing ideas) but it seems so have lost about 40 IQ points recently, and if the question is multi-part, it often answers just one part with no elaboration or explanation…

Now, admittedly, I’m not a major voice mode user for any of the apps really but it’s been interesting to see people realize in real time how controlling the length of response is an inherently difficult problem in voice conversations. There’s a reason that us humans have to use a lot of nonverbal cues in order to judge how long our responses should be, when to bail early, when someone wants to jump in briefly, beyond…

I suspect answering the full question is always preferred, at least for me (I tend to waffle and may ask 2-3 questions in a single voice prompt, and it annoyed me when grok voice recently stopped answering all of them, and instead seemed to select max one to answer with no mention of the others).

Regarding length, I developed the habit of aggressively interrupting, which made voice mode basically perfect. Interrupting had to be learned because it felt very unnatural at first.

Conversely, a skill I'm currently learning is how to ask Grok to 'talk more about X' or 'can you explain that more' (I didn't need to do this prior to 2 weeks ago so I still haven't gotten good at it)

Re: Grok 4.6

#285

Post by tintor »

prideout wrote: post #254
legucy wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a widespread belief that the nature of intelligence is scalar, like how a person can have 100x more wealth than another person. If this were true, then we’d probably see breakaway RSI from a single lab. But I think we’re discovering that intelligence is about universality, not magnitude. This is analogous to how building a universal Turing machine wasn’t merely a matter of building a calculator that could mu…

But aren't today's frontier models already "fully universal"? To use your Turing machine analogy, I think we're past the calculator stage.

They are not. They can't do dexterous manipulation by controlling a humanoid robot.

Re: Grok 4.6

#286

Post by ActionHank »

ikiris wrote: post #275
zahlman wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 If the prompt guidance is causing the model to be so paranoid about leaking the system prompt... how do we already have it ?

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Grok 4.6

#287

Post by Manfrednotfunny »

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.

Yeah for sure you work at Grok.

Mechahitler? the lawsuite for CSAM in europe?

Learn about were you work and whom you work for...

Re: Grok 4.6

#288

Post by gazebo2 »

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.

It was always possible to modify images to produce inappropriate or insensitive content, but plugging a turbocharged state of the art image generator with virtually no guardrails into every Twitter reply and then failing to address the issue long after it was obviously being used for CSAM or deepfakes of real people against their will.. well that's worse

Re: Grok 4.6

#289

Post by dbbk »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Grok 4.6

#290

Post by tintor »

causal wrote: post #44
extr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Fable is just synthetic RL tasks + scale. The secret has been out for awhile now.

Does not explain timing

Maybe because frontier labs buy the same RL tasks from task producer companies.
Post reply on HN