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

621–630 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#621

Post by ac29 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #518
zmmmmm wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a combination of (1) and something you don't list: I think the frontier labs all have multiple generations of undisclosed models in continuous training. There is no "end point" when it's magically "ready". It's just getting better and better all the time. What they release with a name and a version number is just a marketing / branding exercise. So what you experience as a "near simultaneous" release is just the…

That’s not how training pipelines work, and would be extremely wasteful for the biggest cost center as well.

I was under the impression labs released post-training checkpoints fairly often?

So Model N/N+1 might literally have had the exact the same pretraining run and only differ on how much/what kind of postraining they got

Re: Grok 4.6

#622

Post by jychang »

vorticalbox wrote: post #582
stingraycharles wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how training pipelines work, and would be extremely wasteful for the biggest cost center as well.

pretty sure at this point no one is retraining from zero they have their big model and they fine tune it. different training makes a different version (agent, info sec etc).

The GPT-5.5 and 5.6 Spud pretrain is a fresh pretrain run.

OpenAI has the Doug/Astro pretrain coming up next.

Re: Grok 4.6

#623

Post by xutopia »

pell wrote: post #374
hackernan9000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious - what is the main issue you find polarizing with grok?

It took many many many turns for me to have the model even acknowledge that the fake elector scheme was actually a thing. It's very much primed to answer vaguely when it goes against the current political ideals of its owner.

My experience as well.

I asked Grok if the family birthday image posted by Maye Musk could have been generated by AI and Grok refused to say that it was a possibility.

Multiple news outlets independently verified that the label "Made with AI" was on the original image before being edited.

In Grok's latest incarnation it admits the label "Made with AI" existed in the original but refuses to say that this means that it was made with AI.

Whatever Elon or his ghost accounts (his mom's account being one of them) is taken as gospel by Grok.

I can't stand that and I don't want to use a product from someone who does nazi salutes, flashed white power symbols on SNL and funds far right political parties around the world.

Re: Grok 4.6

#624

Post by lukan »

krapp wrote: post #610
red75prime wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.

If it burns, it burns ..

Re: Grok 4.6

#625

Post by hn111 »

dllu wrote: post #129

In terms of using experience, I found Grok 4.5 to be way more pleasant to use than GPT 5.6 Sol and Claude 4.8/5. It just gets to the point, and is super fast and concise, no yapping. That's how AI agents should be imo. None of the weird "Claude ipsum" jargon like "load-bearing" and "stale folklore" or GPT 5.6-isms like "focused regression" and "provenance".

You hit the nail on the head, and it matters.

Re: Grok 4.6

#626

Post by FeepingCreature »

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…

One company making a big release both reduces the risks of training a big model (you know it can work) and increases the risks of not doing so (you are bleeding market share).

Re: Grok 4.6

#627

Post by orsorna »

simmerup wrote: post #564
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.

I guess there’s a reason Musk likened AI to summoning the demon in horror films. It’s powerful but who knows what you’ll get

The reason he said that is because he's a rube.

Re: Grok 4.6

#628

Post by wyldfire »

Someone1234 wrote: post #81
hackernan9000 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious - what is the main issue you find polarizing with grok?

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…

And here https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-...

... which must be just a coincidence, right? Nothing to do with this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs

Re: Grok 4.6

#629

Post by dormento »

sebastiennight wrote: post #504
adastra22 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person I see in a mirror is a human being. The person I see in a mirror is me. What do you think a mirror is?

If you do not think there is a difference between "your reflection in a mirror" and "you", it opens so many fascinating questions. I'm curious: - Do you think a live video, shown on a phone screen, of you, is "you"? - Do you think a still photograph of you is "you"? - Do you think a set of bytes representing that photograph (or video) digitally is "you"? - Do you think a compressed version of that photograph is "you"…

> Is Pi a person?

Not only that! Does the decimal representation of π (which is infinite in length) contain all persons who ever existed, and will ever exist? Since π itself is a known reason, but its decimal representation is infinite, it means π cannot contain itself. So if it can contain every person that ever existed, but can't contain itself (which could conceivably contain everyone), then what does that even mean?

Aaargghh.

Re: Grok 4.6

#630

Post by dormento »

reichstein wrote: post #597
cellular wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do "reflect top to bottom". Hold a written word in front of your eyes to read it. Now flip it to the mirror to read the reflection: Did you flip it horizontally? Then it reflected left-to-right. Did you flip it vertically? Then it reflected top-to-bottom.

I think "reflect top to bottom" is intended to mean "swap top and button". A mirror reflects left, right, top and bottom perfectly. It's front and back that it swaps. Someone saying that a mirror swaps left and right is comparing it to a photograph, and only because we, as bipedal creatures, really prefer to orient images of other humans with heads up.

You know, I never thought about that.

This was my small "mind expansion moment" for today. Thanks!

Post reply on HN