4 ms·
Grok is pretty bad. No wonder usage is low. I think they messed up when they removed the human annotation team and went in the direction of automation. The bet
by Frannky 5mo ago
Grok is pretty bad. No wonder usage is low. I think they messed up when they removed the human annotation team and went in the direction of automation.
The bet can eventually pay off when they figure out how to train without human help and also generate useful models. Imagine is terrible too.
More competition is great for us users. I hope they recover. In the meantime why not hosting oss models like google does?
- nwah1 5mo agoMy understanding is that inference (running existing models) is around 1/4th of the average compute budget for AI companies. Training new models takes up about 3/4ths. As such, using only 11% of their GPUs indicates that they've elected not to do as much training as they are capable of.
- brazukadev 5mo agoif they "elected" to do that, with such a terrible model, they are the most incompetent AI lab ever.
- indoordin0saur 5mo agoI've actually found it to be very good, as good as the other big models. Which version did you most recently use and for what purpose?
- Frannky 5mo agoI tried all the versions, starting from Grok3. Grok3 was the one I was getting real work done with. After that just terrible experiences. I use LLMs for asking questions and coding. Generated answers are bad. Generated code is bad. Images and videos look super fake. And there is no fixed subscription to use it in CLI terminals. If it was as good as other LLMs, as you say, why 11% usage, and why selling compute to Claude after all the badmouthing? I prefer deepseek 10x.