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

611–620 of 696 posts

Re: Grok 4.6

#611

Post by bloak »

chrisjj wrote: post #542
solatic wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Is the additional explicit reference to CSAM necessary to ... There's no such reference. There's only a reference to the far broader "sexual content of a minor".

It says "requesting sexual content of a minor". I'm not sure how to parse that. My brain is jumping back and forth between "requesting stuff from a minor" and "stuff that is inside a minor".

Re: Grok 4.6

#612

Post by mike_hearn »

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…

Laws about what counts as child porn vary considerably across jurisdiction. "Criminal activity" is vague. These problems trip up humans before AI existed too.

Re: Grok 4.6

#615

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Grok 4.6

#616

Post by mike_hearn »

behnamoh wrote: post #305
tintor wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because frontier labs buy the same RL tasks from task producer companies.

Who are these task producers? Are you saying that Anthropic, et al delegate the RL part to third party companies that do it for pretty much every other AI company as well?

Yes they're called RL gym companies and there's a whole ecosystem of them. You hardly hear about them because their only customers are AI labs and RLVR is where the improvements are coming from at the frontier right now.

Note that RLVR is incredibly compute expensive but it's CPU as much as GPU.

Re: Grok 4.6

#618

Post by nailer »

gafferongames wrote: post #533
nailer wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes there is. Same way there is any other kind of content without a justification. Make a comment, provide zero supporting arguments.

If you have a justification and don't provide it, the comment is worthless regardless of the subject. Of course you have an opinion different than other people: many people do, that is not interesting and is a waste of people's time.

Re: Grok 4.6

#619

Post by AlecSchueler »

Amezarak wrote: post #347
gazebo2 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was always possible to modify images to produce inappropriate or insensitive content, but plugging a turbocharged state of the art image generator with virtually no guardrails into every Twitter reply and then failing to address the issue long after it was obviously being used for CSAM or deepfakes of real people against their will.. well that's worse

Notice the Wikipedia link says the problem was "put her in a bikini." The claims about "Grok just lets you undress people" were massively exaggerated because people hate Elon (perhaps for good reason) and not worse than other models.

Having clothes removed to the point of wearing a bikini is "being undressed" and I feel you're choosing not to understand the impact of being publicly sexualised in a bikini can have.

Grok is directly tied to Twitter in a way that other models don't have, so the use of Grok to do this stuff is inherently more public and traumatising for the targets.

You're right that people hate Elon and that they have good reason to do so, but you might be falling for the trap of underestimating the legitimate and unique concerns about Grok because it's easy to assign them just to "Elon hate."

Re: Grok 4.6

#620

Post by Hoasi »

lucisferre wrote: post #335
dmix wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These system prompts are not the only safety layer that these models use. There's other more deterministic filters in place both on input and (streaming) output.

I think it is fair to argue that prompts are not a safety layer at all and can't be relied upon for much. "Make no mistakes"

As reliable as telling a pachinko machine: don’t lose my money!
Post reply on HN