after using cursor grok & trae.ai for several months , grok curor is highly superior results to trae.ai

Elon's mother recently posted an AI-generated photo of her son's birthday party. The tag indicating such was scrubbed as soon as it was pointed out.

This has been my experience as well. Grok will end tasks almost immediately and claim "Done!". It's definitely the laziest and most "dishonest" of all the models. The others aren't perfect, but I can't use Grok for any serious coding task.

What if it doesn't like you

I was going to say the reverse - claude has been the less satisfying normalized by benchmark for me in the last year. Both astra and fable have their quirks, but I am 90% codex this year up from 10% last year.

It's not just about benchmaxxing. Sincerely targeting those long-autonomy benchmarks is questionable in the first place, because naturally it drives the model to assume more and more about what you want.

Their leading benchmark with cost per task shows a tough sell compared to Fable 5.1 Low and doesn't reach the performance of Fable 5.1 Medium.

How representative that is of real world usage, I don't know.

In their benchmark GPT 5.6 Sol performs suspiciously poorly compared to the former models.

No but almost all good ideas can be reduced down to a few sentences if you're good at explaining things. It's a different kind of intelligence than what's commonly called IQ but it's something like that regardless.

Sure the explanation will oversimplify a lot but then you can expand it recursively if needed, you gotta start somewhere.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough

That's half true. A very smart model should be able make good explanations, which include simple understandable prose. That can should be possible even as its thought process gets more alien.

You become better at expressing your thoughts, but harder to understand.

This happens most though when the speaker doesn't (or care to) understand their audience.

Eg i find effective communication requires expertise in both the subject matter domain but also the reference of the listener. Eg in ELI5 framing, if you don't know what information 5yr olds are expected to know you'll do a poor job at an ELI5.

It often feels like Claude does poorly at both framing the response relative to what it "thinks" the listener knows, but also the prose is... sideways, just weird as you said.

What I notice about Claudish is that it has its preferred cliche’s and overstretched methaphores, it packs too many ideas in a sentence, and to achieve the latter it makes up adjectives.

I should try adding these tips to my system prompt. Is there a shorthand to describe such language use? I am not a native English speaker.

It's pretty much the biggest complaint of Claude compared to its competitors, so they really should adress it .

Same. The issue with Anthropics models is that (speaking regarding code generation) they REFUSE any kind of comment override instructions. I've tried everything and no matter what, after a few turns, they resort to generating the same overtly verbose junk. Bun's codebase is littered with them See

   // `HANDLE` is an opaque kernel handle (kernel32 validates and returns 0/FALSE
   // on a non-console handle); every out-param is `&mut T` to a `#[repr(C)]` POD,
   // ABI-identical to the Win32 `LP*` pointer (thin non-null). The reference type
   // encodes the only pointer-validity precondition, so `safe fn` discharges the
   // link-time proof. (`bun_windows_sys::kernel32` declares these with `*mut`;
   // redeclared locally so the legacy-conhost cursor path below is plain calls.)

or

   // Progress's terminal handle is the canonical `output::File` (vtable-backed
   // stderr/File from `OutputSinkVTable`). The duplicate `ProgressTerminalVTable`
   // from B-0 round 1 is removed; tty/ansi/winsize route through    the new
   // `OutputSinkVTable` slots so `bun_core` stays T0 (no `bun_sys` dep).

from src/bun_core/Progress.rs

yes

I would if they let me bring the subscription I have to the harness of my choice.

it's definitely not bigger. smaller if anything looking at how much faster it is

Does not work for Claude, at least for me and I put it as the system prompt

Using a variety of models feels similar to the benefit of having a team of individuals from different backgrounds.

this is exactly it.

The chart is cursorbench though and they asked about the "deceptive graph"

They can benchmark it because you can use an openai api key with cursor. Astra is just not included in the cursor plan.

The point of Cursor Bench is to show how models perform in Cursor. If 99% of their users won't be able to access a model unless they go out of their way to include setup an API key for it (which would be insanely expensive with Astra), why would they include it in the benchmark?

Cursor never added Astra to its consumer subscription plans. And it's likely exactly because of this announcement. Why would they add support for a model they would have to remove shortly after?

Pulled out from letting them resell Astra access, that's not a limitation on running a benchmark.

Привет, fellow American!

He is very very good at executing on making money which is the point of business.

Also pushing technology forward.

About half of SpaceX revenue is Starlink subscriptions. Starlink is the one profitable division; the rest of the company operates at a loss, including xAI.

I take issue with your use of the word "bend" here.

Can you provide specific examples of where Elon has bent the levers of government?

Brand reputation; ROI; grok the sexual harassment bot; grok the CSAM bot; his free speech absolutism position. Take your pick.

Think we all can agree he has had staggering successes, but they have all come from having massive capital from Paypal which wasn't anything super innovative, it just solved a convenient problem at a convenient time and was awarded handsomely. Elon has put his capital to work in various ways to become successful, not all of the ways being morally sound.

All except Starlink and Tesla are burning money. I personally don't consider that "staggering success."

being ignorant and influenced is different from being wrong, the american electorate is well known to be under informed

half of voters don't pay any attention to politics until the week or two before voting

Only sheep call other people sheep.

Sheep often like to think themselves the wolf or coyote, it would seem.

Why would he make a Nazi salute and then shit all over Nazi ideology?

Which Nazi ideologies do you think he embraces? How do you reconcile all the Nazi ideologies he rejects?

I personally don't like him using his position to spread fake news and racist propaganda

Hardly seems worse than supporting Dario’s antics at least vis a vis AI. There are no saints in this industry, only a panoply of flawed humans.

I've had really good experiences with Grok 4.6 and grok build. I've been playing around with tscircuit and it can write code with an understanding of spacial reasoning, while also importing cad components from different file formats into tsx, I've been having claude come in and try to error check it and so far claude hasn't found anything to improve in my three projects.

I'm excited for 4.7 although I share skepticism with other users whether 4.7 will be significantly better, since they didn't raise the price.

Nice to see this release cadence increasing and some continued improvement in quality. I am guessing these models are basically still outcomes of the cursor team integrating with the massive amount of compute they now own: I’d imagine we will see significant step up improvements with grok 5 later this year as the team gets more experienced and confident with larger training deployments. Here’s hoping for another competitive frontier model!

It might be more capable, but AA indicates it's a lot less token efficient than Grok 4.6: https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents?agents=co...

Can you explain your opinion? I'm curious but such vague comments won't convince me.

you are a joke if you think omp is a joke.

Congratulations to the team!

Not sure on the API side, in Cursor you can always use 4.6 at xhigh.

Your comment is like 6 months to a year late.

There for awhile it seemed like we’d have 3 big competitors but then Grok 4.2 or 4.4 was just diabolical while OAI and Claude continued their significant improvements. Grok was/is so bad that I was convinced musk was gonna shut it down and just fund Anthropic compute once they reached their compute agreement.

( why is the x-axis on the first chart in descending order ? )

By no one. For the price of 1M token you can get more and with better results with other models.

I understand DeepSeek 4.1 Flash is available on US providers with Zero Data Retention if that is what you are asking.

It's probably the most aligned (to a single person) model out there!

For me it works well for agentic coding tasks and terminal/unix/bash (in cursor and grok build); it's also token efficient and cheaper than gpt 5.6. It's def not as good as Fable for me (I haven't used Astra much, can't comment). So it's not the cheapest, not the most capable, but it has a good mix of it for my backend, go, infra work.

The voice is the same AI slop as the others imho.

(This is about Grok 4.6, I didn't test 4.7 yet).

edit: clarified I mean agentic coding tasks

If you haven't used it, how do you know if it's winning?

I think it's winning on UI for normies (grok bot) and they made some claims about being pareto SOTA (lowest cost per task completed) a while back with 4.6.

I find it to be a perfectly capable model for implementation (there are many in this class--deepseek flash, spark1.3, luna, etc). I find the usage to be very generous w/ supergrok. I find the model to be just fine for 90% of what I want to do, but I use a smarter model to plan complicated things.

cached input tokens are $0.50 per 1M (prompts under 200k tokens) and $1.00 per 1M (200k+)

$0.40

If the CursorBench 4.0 score diagram is the headline, I read it as "Grok 4.7 xHigh is almost the same as Fable5.1 on low".

Is there a metric for like... time taken when comparing these two? I see score and cost.

If Fable5.1 can knock it out more quickly on low but Grok4.7 might take twice as long to stumble through a problem (and leave behind a bunch of yucky comments or un-needed extra unit tests), are they really comparable?

Or like... the "quality" of the solution? "It works" versus "it's unmaintainable/very messy/hacky".

Good thing they used 5.6 sol instead of Astra for benchmarks, the EEbench one is crazy[1]

[1]https://eebench.org/

Not even close to astra. Astra is something else. It is expensive, but uses way fewer tokens do my tasks.

xAI missed its chance, Ball is on Anthropic's court.

https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... - default reasoning level.

Here's reasoning level high: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...

For some reason reasoning effort low and medium used similar numbers of tokens, and xhigh used less than high. I think I need to try without OpenRouter in the middle.

You'll have to include it in the future, or your benchmark won't be relevant.

For now, I doubt anyone would notice your protest if you didn't announce it.

MechaHitler 4.7