641–650 of 1001 posts
Tried this for a legal use case and it was excellent, comparable to Opus in quality but much faster. AI is miles behind in law compared to coding: the output was similar to a law student intern. But coherent and directionally correct and beats starting from a blank sheet of paper. Impressed.
I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?
I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?
Grok has the most balanced answers according to many tests. I think you should try and ask gemini and claude some political questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has it occurred to you that _all_ model providers are actively trying to shape their models' replies to fit their preferred political narratives?
It's not the preferred political narrative of the model that I worry about. It's how brazen they are about altering their models to achieve it. It makes me wonder what else they're altering. I have trust issues with OpenAI and Anthropic as well, but with those companies, at least I know their motives are purely profit driven. I don't have that assurance with xAI.
I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has it occurred to you that _all_ model providers are actively trying to shape their models' replies to fit their preferred political narratives?
Sure, but there’s the direction of a vector, and the length of the vector. xAI’s direction is hellish, and length is 100x any other provider’s. So, yeah, nobody is pure. But most are at least trying to be balanced and not just, you know.
First impressions: - Very fast, easily beats GPT 5.5/Opus 4.8/GLM 5.2 because of higher t/s (around 90?) and very high token efficiency - Very good price, no contest vs GPT and Opus which are very overpriced if you pay API costs, and probably cheaper than GLM 5.2 when you take into account the token efficiency. - Will take quite a while to get a feel for how smart it is, but it's definitely good, I'd say in the same…
This is what I don't understand. Why would I use this "cheaper" model when it's still going to be more expensive than Codex on the $200 plan? Are they only targeting business users who pay per token?
Reading through these threads is cursed. This site supposedly attracts the brightest of us but its all just a bunch of people ignoring the article and screaming that Musk is evil so everything he does must be ignored and villified. Just really dissapointing hysteria on display here.
I just don't think that I can ever trust an xAI model knowing that they are actively trying to shape its replies to fit a political narrative. How can you trust their models to be reliable in a business setting with the foreknowledge that their models are being nudged around in the backend?