Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why's that?
A lot of reasons.
I think illegally using natural gas generators to power his datacenters in residential areas, is pretty high on that list.
Grok 4.6
531–540 of 696 posts
Re: Grok 4.6
#532After Elon posted that Anthropic was the best AI company of the current generation, I figured xAI might be taking its foot off the gas a bit. Surprised Grok 4.6 came out this quickly
Re: Grok 4.6
#533It'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…
> Beyond that, the obvious astroturfing that occurs on this site (along with reddit, etc.) when it comes to Grok isn't helping. Your comment is at number 1 on the thread. It has no rationale for why you consider Musk so unlikeable. It might instead be possible that unjistified anti-Musk content is unreasonably elevated.
There is no such thing as unjustified anti-Musk content.
Re: Grok 4.6
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
> The alternative is Claude-style "safeguards" aka censorship Another obvious alternative is to just have the model do what you tell it to do, and then arrest people who use generic tools for crime instead of trying to make a kitchen knife that can't be used for stabbing someone.
This is a terrible idea. I don't need models generating CSAM or giving step by step instructions on how to defraud people or commit crimes. I just don't see the use-case.
Re: Grok 4.6
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddits owner is also petty and insecure and edited other peoples posts, Elon hasn't done that yet. Didn't seem to stop reddit from getting popular, people don't really care that much.
...but people don't just hate Elon because he's petty? they hate him for the prejudiced BS and his actually harmful meddling in politics
They hate him because he's a huge fucking douchebag
Re: Grok 4.6
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah for sure you work at Grok. Mechahitler? the lawsuite for CSAM in europe? Learn about were you work and whom you work for...
As funny as Mechahitler was it was more of a Microsoft Tay moment with the chatbot parroting what Twitter’s users were telling him without guardrails or a safe system prompt. It had nothing to do with grok’s or Musks pro nazi views (or lack thereof)
Yes it did.
Elon Musk wasn't happy that his own chatbot was to left, so they 'adjusted' grok so often until it became mechahitler.
Re: Grok 4.6
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are only strawmanning around. Apparently you are unable to coprehend that other peole have values.
*comprehend *people Also, that's not what strawmanning is. I never denied that Grok didn't act bizarrely offensively over a fucking year and a half ago (so did other LLMs, btw... and so have many other experiments over the years, remember Microsoft's?), which is an eternity in this space. I know Musk is polarizing, but give me a fucking break. Don't assume malice when social incompetence serves as an exculpatory fact…
So i do care that Elon Musk is responsible for USAID shutdown. The richest man on the world shuts down human support so abruptly that he causes real humans to die.
Elon Musk, as the richest person on the planet, bought himself a propaganda platform he controls and started to finger around in democracy.
Its a lot more than 'just' CSAM.
Re: Grok 4.6
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in theory you can make an LLM A LOT faster than a human. You can also run massive amount of LLMs in parallel. There might be a limit to a normal LLM but not to theo everall system.
Humans, however, are highly variable, which may produce really varied and interesting results if they work together. One instance of an LLM is the same as another instance, so while you may get more out of it by stacking more of them, I strongly suspect it falls victim to diminishing returns. 100 instances of the same LLM may converge on the same result as 10.
You can change the temperature if you like. Have a 1000 agents being 'normal' and 10 being chaotic.
Re: Grok 4.6
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest explanation is that 'Fable-level' doesn't mean anything; it's just hype, and there's not much difference in capability. All you need to have Fable-level AI is to announce it, and have enough fans shift from insisting that model Y is the best now, way better than model X.
Are you just guessing this? Using it, it's was clearly a jump in intelligence over previous models. It (mythos) was first made public in April so it's not a surprise that others would catch up, though.
> it's was clearly a jump in intelligence over previous models.
Some people thought this. Some people didn't. Some people thought it was a step backwards. We don't have a solid ground-truth way of estimating this.
Re: Grok 4.6
#540Earlier 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 in theory you can make an LLM A LOT faster than a human. You can also run massive amount of LLMs in parallel. There might be a limit to a normal LLM but not to theo everall system.
Yes, given enough time I can answer all the questions in an IQ test correctly. We measure human intelligence in a time-limited setting and score relative to the performance of other humans doing the exact same task. Problem is brains can’t be scaled. To scale humans we need organizations, but human organizations also don’t scale well with increasing headcount.
LLMs scale well in almost all dimensions. Context window (working memory) can be a bottleneck but for humans you can’t scale it at all.