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

391–400 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#391

Post by CTDOCodebases »

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…

That prompt is there for legal reasons. Non deterministic output is the expected outcome.

Re: Grok 4.6

#392

Post by throwatdem12311 »

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…

Prompts are not good “guardrails” anyway.

Re: Grok 4.6

#394

Post by stingraycharles »

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…

In one way you’re right, of course, but if you look at Fable, for example, that uses similar guardrails, it’s downright impossible to discuss these things.

It is my understanding that having a secondary model whose sole purpose is to trigger based on guardrails is the way this is usually done.

Re: Grok 4.6

#395

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Grok 4.6

#396

Post by dvduval »

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…

Criminal activity by which countries laws?

Re: Grok 4.6

#397

Post by synergy20 »

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.…

define criminal activities, is censorship criminal here,are you doing it

Re: Grok 4.6

#398

Post by porphyra »

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…

The alternative is Claude-style "safeguards" aka censorship, which:

1. doesn't eliminate the possibility of a jailbreak anyway

2. frequently has false positives, triggering on innocuous requests, which is just really annoying

Not saying that we can't (or shouldn't) do better than Grok, but I really don't know what the best solution is here...

Re: Grok 4.6

#399

Post by embedding-shape »

ozgung wrote: post #326
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…

I think they dumb down their public models to be only slightly better than the competition. And the real competition is China, so the current state of the Chinese models would define the baseline. I think one evidence is that the US has more than 5x the compute of China. With that difference in training speed, it should be impossible for Chinese models to close the gap that easily. It's also very unlikely that they s…

> I think one evidence is that the US has more than 5x the compute of China. With that difference in training speed, it should be impossible

How could we really know how much "compute China has" in reality? Is it possible that whatever estimates people has come up with for both China and the US might not be 100% accurate?

Re: Grok 4.6

#400

Post by dzonga »

porphyra wrote: post #398
ryandvm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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…

The alternative is Claude-style "safeguards" aka censorship, which: 1. doesn't eliminate the possibility of a jailbreak anyway 2. frequently has false positives, triggering on innocuous requests, which is just really annoying Not saying that we can't (or shouldn't) do better than Grok, but I really don't know what the best solution is here...

yeah the 'grok' way sounds less safe but it means less policing and having abstract arbiters of the truth
Post reply on HN