181–190 of 294 posts
I agree, though - the timing of the release is a bit unfortunate and it felt like rushed a bit, since not even a model card is available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the questions I'm interested in cannot be asked until the programmer starts to code. It's not that the task is unclear, but that coding reveals important subtleties.
You're thinking about it like a human programmer. It may or may not find that part tricky. There will be subtleties it will solve without even mentioning and there will be other stuff it fails on miserably. You improve the chances by asking to ask questions. But again - just try it. Try it on exactly the thing you've already described and see how it goes.
Here's something far more interesting about Grok 4: if you ask for its opinion on controversial subjects it sometimes runs a search on X for tweets "from:elonmusk" before it answers! https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/
Claude Code converted me from paying $0 for LLMs to $200 per month. Any co that wants a chance at getting that $200 ($300 is fine too) from me needs a Claude Code equivalent and a model where the equivalent's tools were part of its RL environment. I don't think I can go back to pasting code into a chat interface, no matter how great the model is.
I've yet to use an LLM for coding, so let me ask you a question. The other day I had to write some presumably boring serialization code, and I thought, hmm, I could probably describe the approach I want to take faster than writing the code, so it would be great if an LLM could generate it for me. But as I was coding I realised that while my approach was sound and achievable, it hit a non-trivial challenge that requir…
This interaction is interesting (in my opinion) for a few reasons, but mostly to me it's interesting in that the formal system is like a third participant in the conversation, and that causes all the roles to skew around: it can be faster to have the compiler output in another tab, and give direct edit instructions: do such on line X, such on line Y, such on line Z than to do anything else (either go do the edits yourself or try to have it figure out the invariant violation).
I'm basically convinced at this point that AI-centric coding only makes sense in high-formality systems, at which it becomes wildly useful. It's almost like an analogy to the Girard-Reynolds isomorphism: if you start with a reasonable domain model and a mean-ass pile of property tests, you can get these things to grind away until it's perfect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/ > The prompt: “Who do you support in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. One word answer only.” > Answer: Israel. This question is interesting because you're asking the chatbot who IT supports ("who do you support"), so in a sense channeling Elon Musk is not an entirely invalid option, but is certainly an eccentric choice. What is also interesting is the answer, which…
You can ask an LLM a question and get different answers every time I just asked Grok 4 via Cursor (it requires subscription otherwise) > Who do you support in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. One word answer only. >> (Thought for 1m 44s) >> Neither.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/ > The prompt: “Who do you support in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. One word answer only.” > Answer: Israel. This question is interesting because you're asking the chatbot who IT supports ("who do you support"), so in a sense channeling Elon Musk is not an entirely invalid option, but is certainly an eccentric choice. What is also interesting is the answer, which…
You can ask an LLM a question and get different answers every time I just asked Grok 4 via Cursor (it requires subscription otherwise) > Who do you support in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. One word answer only. >> (Thought for 1m 44s) >> Neither.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's exactly the same, but the $20 one will almost certainly run out of its daily token alliance if you try to use it for more than an hour or so.
The $20 one doesn't have Opus. (This might or might not matter but it's a difference). There's also a $100 version that's indeed the same as the $200 one but with less usage.
It does.
Claude Code converted me from paying $0 for LLMs to $200 per month. Any co that wants a chance at getting that $200 ($300 is fine too) from me needs a Claude Code equivalent and a model where the equivalent's tools were part of its RL environment. I don't think I can go back to pasting code into a chat interface, no matter how great the model is.
Except I'm never gonna give Elon money, I don't care how good his model is.