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

601–610 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#601

Post by bakies »

phoghed wrote: post #600
tyre wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an approximately zero probability that someone donating hundreds of millions of dollars to Super PACs in support of the most vain and corrupt president in US history will be held up by anti-trust enforcement. There's not a lot of reason for them to keep arms length at this point.

While you’re probably correct on this one, I thought the same thing about them ending the electric car rebates

That didn't really harm Tesla, they had already used their rebates. It harmed the competitors more so it may have been beneficial.

Re: Grok 4.6

#602

Post by bakies »

moojacob wrote: post #402
m101 wrote: post #389

Does anyone know how the grok allowances compare to OpenAI / Anthropic for the monthly plans? I heard they're not generous, which means I never really bother testing Grok.

Cursor is very generous atm, you get a ton of Grok usage and then your monthly subscription cost in api pricing for Claude and GTP.

It's doubled for the first week fyi

Re: Grok 4.6

#603

Post by gbxk »

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…

Nobody said that’s the only safeguard. When the attack surface is all of language you better have a defense-in-depth philosophy or as close as you can to that.

Re: Grok 4.6

#604

Post by dominotw »

p1esk wrote: post #385
dominotw wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not suspicious at all. They are all doing the same scaling of test time, training data so getting similar results. anyone with access to capital can produce frotier model. hell you can just ask chatgpt how to create a fontier model. recipe is not a secret despite what these 'labs' pretend

Google is not able to currently produce a frontier model despite all the capital.

They couldnt launch many things like a social network, connected glasses

Re: Grok 4.6

#605

Post by bakies »

nater5000 wrote: post #49

It'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…

Musk is in bed with my authoritarian government, what's China gonna do to me?

Re: Grok 4.6

#606

Post by cman1444 »

solatic wrote: post #521
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... If it becomes explicitly clear during the conversation that the user is requesting sexual content of a minor, decline to engage. Incredible that both of these should be together in the same system prompt. In what jurisdiction is CSAM not criminal? Is the additional explicit reference to CSAM necessary to safeguard against us…

Surely there are cases where a user could request child sexual content without it being technically criminal. For example, sexually suggestive clothing/content that is not complete nudity.

Re: Grok 4.6

#607

Post by sscaryterry »

yoz-y wrote: post #519
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…

Others have said this too but LLMs are the best approximation of magic we have. We etch runes on stones, put electricity through them and then try to “convince” them to do our bidding. The answers vary wildly sometimes depending on minutiae. Prompts should be really called spells. It really feels more like “should I add the frog’s eye or leg into the cauldron” than engineering.

Is that you Merlin?

Re: Grok 4.6

#608

Post by bakies »

throwaway-blaze wrote: post #193
itsdesmond wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not unless you're here illegally. And it has nothing to do with skin color. Just the basic fact that a country not in control of its borders ceases to be a country.

Trump is doing everything in his power to make people illegal. Outright revoking visas and making immigrants unemployment so their visa sponsorship is expired. This is nationalism and doesn't have anything to do with border control but with brutalizing minorities.

We had all the border control, the border encounters being exactly 0 since Trump took office? Pretty obviously bullshit, it's the same as before with extra brutality. Despicable and disgusting people think like you and support this policy.

Re: Grok 4.6

#609

Post by bakies »

bigyabai wrote: post #273
tistoon wrote: post #202

[flagged]

> I’m seriously considering switching to Grok What's holding you back? According to your post history you've been calling Grok "awesome" for months now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47988753 Is there any part of Anthropic's offerings that you're struggling to leave behind?

Wow that comment history is the biggest shill Ive ever seen

Re: Grok 4.6

#610

Post by krapp »

red75prime wrote: post #561
yoz-y wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have said this too but LLMs are the best approximation of magic we have. We etch runes on stones, put electricity through them and then try to “convince” them to do our bidding. The answers vary wildly sometimes depending on minutiae. Prompts should be really called spells. It really feels more like “should I add the frog’s eye or leg into the cauldron” than engineering.

> “should I add the frog’s eye or leg into the cauldron” This is surely a homebrew witchery. An engineering approach would be to A/B-test batches of potions with eyes and legs, add quality control by testing potions on model organisms, document all steps, analyze all anomalies, and so on.

Typical wizard elitism and pedantry. Let me guess, you "cast fireball" by lighting bat shit on fire and throwing it at someone.
Post reply on HN