Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grok 4.3

docs.x.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 608 posts

Re: Grok 4.3

#221

Post by rglullis »

pixel_popping wrote: post #82
thunderbong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Twitter knows which are the bot accounts and is surely excluding them from their model training. Twitter bots aren't a new phenomenon after all.

There is bots everywhere, it has nothing to do with the platform, it has to do with attackers having an incentive to do mass account farming, no platform is secure against it.

Super easy, just make a web-of-trust type of thing: messages are only visible to those who already vouched for you. Otherwise, you pay $0.01/per message/per user reached.

Re: Grok 4.3

#222

Post by spiderfarmer »

pixel_popping wrote: post #207
tclancy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the correlation between people defending Musk, Twitter and kiddie diddlers?

I don't know either, I don't see the correlation with X and Musk either, as if he is the one developing the platform and not thousand of workers and leaders. What does the CEO of a platform has to do with what people post on it? The CEO of HN is responsible for what you just posted? Kinda funny how people are selective about it, when you land on a website, you check who is in charge of it and for each CEO change you…

There's only thing I find sadder than untouchable billionaires that never see any consequences for their actions: the people who think they need to stick up for them.

> What does the CEO of a platform has to do with what people post on it?

That CEO is actively promoting political viewpoints (via his account, his platform and his AI model) that are detrimental to my country and the way I want to live my life.

> When you land on a website, you check who is in charge of it and for each CEO change you redo a decision?

No. But if the CEO is very publicly a first-class a-hole, chances are I'll hear about it and I'll actively avoid doing business with them. That goes for the car dealership in my village, as well as the websites I interact with.

Re: Grok 4.3

#223

Post by Leynos »

0xy wrote: post #201
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Isn't it exhausting to view everything an ideological lens instead of reviewing technical achievements on their merits?

There are limits to being willing to overlook ideology.

Re: Grok 4.3

#224

Post by subscribed »

cowsup wrote: post #158
thunderbong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure Twitter knows which are the bot accounts and is surely excluding them from their model training. Twitter bots aren't a new phenomenon after all.

I don't think Twitter/X know for sure who the bots are, since Elon has been pretty vocal about trying to stop them for ages, yet I still get lots of spam DMs (as do others with far fewer followers/reach). Even if 95% of the spam gets actively reported and dealt with, that still leaves a ton of nonsense on the platform, getting fed into the LLM. And spam has only gotten worse over the years, as the barrier to entry ha…

Elon lied on record many times, admitting to the lies only when forced, under oath.

Re: Grok 4.3

#225

Post by nex-z »

darkerside wrote: post #191
djyde wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also noticed that when I communicate with Grok in my native language, its tone is more natural than other models. I think this is due to the advantage of being trained on a large amount of Twitter data. However, as Twitter contains more and more AI-generated content now, I'm afraid continued training will make it less natural.

Sadly, it's more likely that people will just start talking like bots

[dead]

Re: Grok 4.3

#226

Post by naasking »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #173
pred_ wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes any company generating csam should not be in business as a legitimate entity. At the same time, in this corner of the world, acting Minister for Justice (also known for trying to push through Chat Control), and NGO Save the Children, have been working to make legal the generation of CSAM for law enforcement use. So that would certainly make the industry legitimate, and you would already have a customer. https:/…

I think they key point here is "for law enforcement". That's a little different from "pay me 10 dollars and enjoy the felonies". I still don't feel good about that by the way.

Would you feel good about completely fake CSAM if it actually reduced incidence of child molestation?

Re: Grok 4.3

#228

Post by Hfuffzehn »

cyanydeez wrote: post #196
Hfuffzehn wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the best statistics about what models people are actually using when they can choose is probably from openrouter: https://openrouter.ai/apps/category/entertainment/roleplay

doesnt knowing about openrouter skew by self selection.

Yes, but that market is not b2b, less commercialized, more end consumer focused and more bring your own key.

That's why I find it interesting. Anthropic is not interested in building a moat there and OpenAI has given up on their announcement of exploring it.

So you can see end users making decisions.

Re: Grok 4.3

#229

Post by subscribed »

karmasimida wrote: post #122
tornikeo wrote: post #30

So, we have: - claude for corps and gov - codex for devs - grok for what, roleplay, racism? Those are the two things I've ever heard grok associated with around me.

Grok for fact checking, I mean ironically

TBF Grok on Twitter and Grok via api behave differently. The latt r is much better.

Re: Grok 4.3

#230

Post by user34283 »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #198
2ndorderthought wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Elon publicaly claimed he had never corresponded with Epstein. that was a lie. When the documents were released they found several like thie one below. Saying things like "What day/night will be the wildest party on =our island?" [0] The "our" part is especially interesting as it implies he didnt just visit, but had an ownership stake. Other emails were found with Epstein making excuses to avoid having Musk visit, an…

My searches have not turned up a result showing that Musk "claimed he had never corresponded with Epstein".

Can you source this? If not, can you explain why you did not check it before you posted the inaccurate claim?

Post reply on HN