4 ms·

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3 https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3

BoorishBears 6mo ago
What an exciting game we're playing, where the most popular leaderboard is completely made up and the stakes are in the trillions.
nextaccountic 6mo ago
This puts Sonnet 4.6 above Opus 4.6 in the coding index.. kinda hard to trust those numbers. (Also it puts Opus 4.7 universally above Opus 4.6, and I may be wrong but this doesn't seem to match the experience of most/many/some people. I think it's widely recognized that Anthropic is severely lacking compute and Opus 4.7 is a costs saving measure)
- manmal 6mo ago
  Anthropic themselves have (had?) this thing where Opus is used for planning and Sonnet for coding.
  - nextaccountic 6mo ago
    I thought this was a costs saving measure: we plan with the frontier model / SOTA, then code with something cheaper. But then, Anthropic employees don't have rate limits, right?
- conception 6mo ago
  What I’ve usually seen is 4.7 -> 4.5 -> 4.6 in terms of quality. Though 4.7 seems to hallucinate more than before.
  - nextaccountic 6mo ago
    Do you mean, 4.7 is better than 4.5 which is better than 4.6?
    - conception 6mo ago
      Yes. If 4.5 had auto mode and fast mode I’d probably still use it a lot.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Alifatisk 6mo ago
Does numbers don't look exciting at all? I may have gotten spoiled by releases from Qwen, Kimi and Z.ai who keep closing the gap between closed weight SOTA models and open weight. From my experience, Grok is only useful for one thing, and that's looking up things for you and gathering a consensus on topics. That's it. Update, I noted that Grok 4.3 is in the "Most attractive quadrant", that's cool! It is also in the top 5 highest in "AA-Omniscience Index", good! Really good.
progbits 6mo ago
What's with the charts and numbers? It says #1 for speed but then in the chart it's #2. Also says #10 for intelligence but then it's #7 in the chart.

What an exciting game we're playing, where the most popular leaderboard is completely made up and the stakes are in the trillions.

nextaccountic 6mo ago

This puts Sonnet 4.6 above Opus 4.6 in the coding index.. kinda hard to trust those numbers. (Also it puts Opus 4.7 universally above Opus 4.6, and I may be wrong but this doesn't seem to match the experience of most/many/some people. I think it's widely recognized that Anthropic is severely lacking compute and Opus 4.7 is a costs saving measure)

manmal 6mo ago
Anthropic themselves have (had?) this thing where Opus is used for planning and Sonnet for coding.
- nextaccountic 6mo ago
  I thought this was a costs saving measure: we plan with the frontier model / SOTA, then code with something cheaper. But then, Anthropic employees don't have rate limits, right?
conception 6mo ago
What I’ve usually seen is 4.7 -> 4.5 -> 4.6 in terms of quality. Though 4.7 seems to hallucinate more than before.
- nextaccountic 6mo ago
  Do you mean, 4.7 is better than 4.5 which is better than 4.6?
  - conception 6mo ago
    Yes. If 4.5 had auto mode and fast mode I’d probably still use it a lot.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

Alifatisk 6mo ago

Does numbers don't look exciting at all? I may have gotten spoiled by releases from Qwen, Kimi and Z.ai who keep closing the gap between closed weight SOTA models and open weight. From my experience, Grok is only useful for one thing, and that's looking up things for you and gathering a consensus on topics. That's it. Update, I noted that Grok 4.3 is in the "Most attractive quadrant", that's cool! It is also in the top 5 highest in "AA-Omniscience Index", good! Really good.

progbits 6mo ago

What's with the charts and numbers? It says #1 for speed but then in the chart it's #2. Also says #10 for intelligence but then it's #7 in the chart.