I used openrouter to send same prompt to qwen, derpseek, gemini and grok and found that grok does good research and produces less bullshit, especially when prompted to be critical of an idea
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.
Apparently Grok 4.7 has 40% more weights than Grok 4.6, but the price ($6 output token, $2 input) is the same.
Given that the decrease in their margin and the fact they delayed the release of Grok 4.7 almost two weeks past the original date, XAI must not have been happy with the results for 4.7. And XAI also waited the day before Opus 5.5 is rumored to launch. I imagine Opus 5.5 will blow Grok 4.7 out of the water benchmark wise.
However, I have become skeptical of benchmarks. Grok 4.5 solved some issues setting up a buildroot system that Fable 5 couldn't do. I find the post cursor groks are phenomenal at frontend web development, though Claude is much better at backend ruby.
My favorite part of the new Groks has been how they speak in plain english. I simply cannot stand Claudish. Or even GPT, which doesn't have Claude's ticks but definitely likes to handwave explaining technical concepts. Still, nothing beats Claude 3.5 and 4 with explaining since it seems all models have regressed. I wonder if Grok 4.7 will also regress with English because of all the RL.
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.
The target market for frontier models is CEOs who want to lay off entire departments of their company. So the long autonomy benchmarks would seem to be sending exactly the right signal.
I totally agree, it’s like that as models become more intelligent, they are less understandable by most of people... but aren’t we humans doing the same?
The best ideas are usually the simplest to elaborate. If someone comes up with a convoluted scheme that are hard to understand or be adequately explained, it's usually fraud.
When claude speak in convoluted mess, they are often going off on tangents in real work that you asked it to do, too.
That believes that the world can be simplified into dichotomies, or at least, simplified. Sometimes problems are complex, and the solutions to them necessarily so. For example, cancer. I order to begin to understand that problem, you have to understand the utter complex scheme it has devised in order to exist. A 20 minute YouTube video isn't going to be able to begin to cover the basics of the subject, although there are some good ones, with clever analogies.
Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean it's fraud, although if someone is trying to dazzle you with clever words and names of institutions you recognize because they are selling you something, there's a good chance they're lying to you in order to get some money from you.
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.
That believes that the world can be simplified into dichotomies, or at least, simplified. Sometimes problems are complex, and the solutions to them necessarily so. For example, cancer
You just simplified most of the problems people work on down to cancer complexity. Ironic, isn't it?
That's also simply not the case, most people are building CRUD apps with some frontend code and some accessory stuff like build systems etc., which while complex, can still be expressed in very plain, easy to understand language for anyone who's a bit technical.
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.
Agreed. The more knowledge you amass on a subject, the more important it becomes to be extremely specific and nuanced - or your communications end up being incorrect. You become better at expressing your thoughts, but harder to understand.
The weird thing is, that's not what AI models seem to be doing. The prose is just weird.
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.
I find people tend to lack nuance in their communication more often - leading to problems and misunderstandings.
If I don't grok an elaborate explanation, I can ask for clarification. If it's explained to me in an overly simplistic or unnuanced way, I'll walk away with a false sense of understanding.
That said, I'm sure we all have very different concentrations of these types of people and problems around us. I've definitely met some engineers who seem to actively try to make their language incomprehensible
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.
Look up the output-style setting, which is a bit stronger than putting it in the system prompt. The new "concise" setting is better than the default but in practice, Claude is a very stubborn model when it comes to these patterns and they're really hard to eliminate, mostly you can only hope to mitigate.
As for the wording of the prompt, you're pretty on point, I created a custom output style targeting mostly the first two you have there. Some people have wording that demands a certain technical standard or uses fancy words to describe what to avoid, but I haven't seen evidence those work better than asking plainly and I suspect the opposite: LLMs mimic the user to a degree so talking to it in terms of technical specifications and fancy words is an invitation to get them back.
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).
Perhaps you haven't had the chance to use it, but 3.8 flash is the best model for talking too. Even routing Claudes output through 3.8 to have it explain whats going on is a breath of fresh air
FYI a quick fix for claudish is to ask for the response to be in ASD-STE100 (Simple Technical English). Then it is far more readable. But I would agree that this is an annoyance and shouldn't require user workaround to get something readable.
I don’t think system prompts are particularly reliable way to do much at all. It’s better to put it as a hook after each response, or a skill at least so you can trigger it at will if you don’t want it everytime.
I find the post cursor groks are phenomenal at frontend web development, though Claude is much better at backend ruby.
Wonder if we'd benefit from a much more specialized + task-specific benchmarks to paint a clearer picture like this. A benchmark solely for frontend, ruby, hardware, etc.
I've noticed Chatgpt 5.6 Sol High, on the chat interface, inventing words that are a mixture of Portuguese and English. Like "hardcodar" a mix of "hardcode" and the most common verb ending in Portuguese "-ar". Some don't have a single google hit
My favorite part of the new Groks has been how they speak in plain english.
I don't know if it's the plain english or what, but I really like Grok for legal research (as opposed to code). It's got a noticeable edge in getting to the point compared to Opus 5.
I wonder if that means that SpaceX evals show that they consider astra better than fable or that they hate Sam&co so much they don't want to show their stuff.
Its because of this. You can't use Astra in Cursor, and cursorbench uses cursor as the harness. They can't actually benchmark it using their harness hence why its not included.
This explains why. Mentioned in another comment, but cursorbench explicitly tests with Cursor as the harness, and OpenAI doesn't allow them to use Astra in Cursor.
That's not accurate. OpenAI doesn't allow Grok to provide Astra to Cursor customers anymore, but it doesn't ban anyone from using Astra via alternative harnesses.
If Cursor wanted to include Astra in CursorBench nothing would stop them, they could easily have spent half an hour vibecoding in OpenAI API key support - if it hadn't been convenient to neglect to do that.
Even if they could do that (workaround to include Astra in CursorBench), that has no practical consequences for Cursor users and that's what I as a Cursor user (what I use for dev, though I use ChatGPT for non-dev stuff) care about.
It would make the benchmark way better obviously, by showing how their new model compares to their competitors, the whole point of benchmarks and graphs.
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?
Deceptive? An extremely quick google search would answer your question. OpenAI pulled out of Cursor before they released Astra so it never got that benchmark.
In my experience Grok especially inside Grok build is pretty solid choice, it’s a no nonsense model and stays on its course. Another surface where I truly enjoy the experience of using Grok model is Grok bot
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!
I tried in Omp (Oh-my-pi), and so far it's really problematic.
It will loop in thinking mode ("Let me implement those fixes: Fix 1, Fix 2, Fix 3 .... Fix 80, Fix 81"), ignore the AGENTS.md instructions, corrupt plan files, etc etc... I have 5.6 Sol as advisor/watchdog, and it blocks every turn, I never saw this. Quite a shame, 4.6 wasn't so bad.
Probably the same reason as oh-my-zsh, you don't need 90% of it. Further compounding the problem in an agent harness is that you are polluting the context window by throwing the kitchen sink at it.
- it allows different models within one session via roles (I only have API, so pay per token)
- it's much more likely (ime) to use the LSP over grep for determining how code fits together
But I agree a 20k+ starting context is way overkill.
I find it's very hard to get information on harnesses people are using. I have to stay model agnostic so I avoid claude, codex, cursor, etc. I've used and tried opencode, which worked well, but obviously lacks the above features.
Does anyone have a resource for following what people are actually being productive with? With so much vibe going on it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Either way, the fact that xAI or SpaceXAI or whatever the name is, I can commend the team behind it on their rapid ascent and progress by being close and or on the frontier in several respects.
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.
Well I "tried it out" I asked it one question, and it gave no answer and said "Sign up to use more!" I don't think I'll be doing that, no.
I can't think of a single dimension grok is winning on (capability, cost, voice), but want to stay open-minded -- anybody want to vouch for its capabilities in any domain?
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 weird part. The early Grok 4 models had a very distinct presentation unlike anything else out there. Then suddenly it made a big jump in coding ability and started sounding just like every other model.
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.
After the cursor aquisition it's become a quite capable coding model. If you take cost into account, it's close to the top. OpenAI is maybe still #1, but I'd put Grok at #2 (again, including cost as a factor).
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".
Astra fails in similar ways, and at similar frequency, as GPT 5.6 Sol does. It often goes way out of scope, or just stops prematurely, or tries to find odd and even dangerous workarounds when it gets stuck.
It's phenomenal at computer use and 3D stuff. I've been using it less and less for coding.
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.
UPDATE: I tried again with the xAI API directly: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... - not a great deal of difference between reasoning levels, and this time xhigh and low used the same number of reasoning tokens for some reason.
Are there good tools for doing context audits? I feel I have no good way to visualize what a new session is getting by default in a given repo without crawling through every potentially included markdown file
I think you're seeing a big shift around it.... since it's been markedly cheaper and also still easily available from OpenCode, it's getting large enterprise traction.
Codex has become my goto tooling. I used to be a Claude Max subscriber, but I was becoming disappointed with the quality of the output from Opus 5. Fable chewed through my usage too quickly to be practical. Moving to a Pro account w/ Codex was a big improvement. Sol had great output, and the usage was more than sufficient for most of my needs. However astra does tend to chew up usage, so when i've done to much of that, and it's became an issue Grok Build has beocme my second go to account. The output especially after the cursor purhcase has become quite good, and the usage has always been very generous.
No doubt xAI has seen rapid progress, but it's been several months of them being "just behind" OpenAI and Anthropic. It seems the gap between just behind the frontier and pushing it is a lot wider than most people thought it was a year ago, and that's why a clear third contender in the frontier model space has yet to materialize.
Same reason Coca-Cola only mention Pepsi and Pepsi only mention Coca-Cola.
It's an proven way to capture the market. You would rather split the pie in two rather than in 4,12 or 50 right?
I refuse to use Grok. Mostly because of the usual reasons - somehow this high profile AI model seems more disgusting than others and it is in a way impressive.
But also Xai doesn’t seem to care about user experience and long term support.
I can't take anyone seriously who uses grok seriously. I like to look at the cybertruck owners forum every so often because it's just... hilarious. And the amount of superfluous grok use over there is just insane. Half the posts I click in there will have a bunch of people dumping entire grok takes "why do people hate cybertruck owners?" "Because they're jealous and poor," sort of stuff that they just LOVE to post.
As a technical point of reference to compare against other llm stuff, sure, I'll glance at a report or benchmark but I really couldn't care less about anything to do with the project and it could blow other options away and I wouldn't touch it.
You should try it, it is less sycophantic than other models and is faster and better at most reasoning levels, don't confuse the twitter bots and services also named Grok with the frontier model itself
I am subscribed to ChatGPT, Claude, Kimi and GLM coding plans. 200$ one on GPT and the 20$ ish ones on all others. Recently added Grok and it has somehow bacome my second most used model.
For daily one off questions I prefer it because it is fast enough and I like the way it responds. I also use it for basic research like “find me a battery drill for this and that”.
Kimi and GLM feel extremely coding oriented. I use them for code reviews basically. I hate the way Anthropic models talk. GPT takes too much time and effort for that kind of stuff for some reason.
Well when I ran out of Grok SuperHeavy subscription ($300) once and tried to use extra credits to cover half a day remaining till reset, $50 in extra credits went in two hours. Based on that, subscription definitely lasts longer; Grok subscription just about covers a week of my work (sometimes a bit extra remains unused, sometimes it runs out half a day to a day early). And as a point of comparison, it lasts for doing same tasks as 2.5-3 weekly limits of Codex on 5.6 Sol did (using xhigh on both Sol and Grok); I needed 3x$200 Codex subscriptions to cover my weekly usage.
as someone who is limited by amazon bedrock support at work (no idea why we got stuck with the worst one) - grok is literally the only budget-ish model option, so nice to see it updated, Sol and Opus are just too rich for my blood. Luna is good but so slow at getting things done (tps wise it's fast)
Every Grok release obscures their cache pricing while highlighting their input/output pricing
From their headline comparison:
Grok: $2/$6 per million
Fable: $10/$50 per million
What this doesn't say: Grok costs 0.50/M cache read, Fable $0.25/M cache read
Long running agentic workflows are dominated by cache reads.
Just makes Grok sound deceptive, and more importantly, reliant on user's lack of understanding of costs aka predatory (which in turn is more infuriating)
I've been using 4.6 for some one-off game mods/utilities and it has done very well. "I have a very niche keyboard (Moonlander) and I play this very niche space sim, make me a SVG keyboard cheatsheet for it". Told me to grab keymap.c for the keyboard and inputmap.xml for the game's key bindings, churned for a while, then spit out a pretty good first attempt. Spent another hour of back and forth to refine it, and it's done: https://files.catbox.moe/x0u76x.svg
Excited to try 4.7. I hope they fixed the "it's not X, it's Y" that showed up in 4.6.
Is this an ad for Vals AI? Looking at their website, the rankings don't mesh with my observed utility for almost any model outside of fable and astra being good-ish.
after using cursor grok & trae.ai for several months , grok curor is highly superior results to trae.ai
I guess it’s only my opinion but having used grok for personal chat: it’s by far the worst one amongst Claude, ChatGPT and even Deepseek, Gemini etc.
The personality is bland and it doesn’t work nearly as hard or even tries to help.
I used openrouter to send same prompt to qwen, derpseek, gemini and grok and found that grok does good research and produces less bullshit, especially when prompted to be critical of an idea
Ask it to be critical of the birthday photos and see where that gets you.
can you elaborate?
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.
I don't use Grok, but do you want your LLM to have a personality? "Personality" is exactly what people don't like about Claude.
I want my sexbot to have a personality
What if it doesn't like you
Until you ask it to start generating horrific imagery and then it's best in class.
Apparently Grok 4.7 has 40% more weights than Grok 4.6, but the price ($6 output token, $2 input) is the same.
Given that the decrease in their margin and the fact they delayed the release of Grok 4.7 almost two weeks past the original date, XAI must not have been happy with the results for 4.7. And XAI also waited the day before Opus 5.5 is rumored to launch. I imagine Opus 5.5 will blow Grok 4.7 out of the water benchmark wise.
However, I have become skeptical of benchmarks. Grok 4.5 solved some issues setting up a buildroot system that Fable 5 couldn't do. I find the post cursor groks are phenomenal at frontend web development, though Claude is much better at backend ruby.
My favorite part of the new Groks has been how they speak in plain english. I simply cannot stand Claudish. Or even GPT, which doesn't have Claude's ticks but definitely likes to handwave explaining technical concepts. Still, nothing beats Claude 3.5 and 4 with explaining since it seems all models have regressed. I wonder if Grok 4.7 will also regress with English because of all the RL.
For what it's worth - over the last few years or whatever, it seems like Anthropic benchmaxxes the least.
That being said, I currently prefer Sol / Astra to Opus / Fable as I find both to be a better cost payoff to me.
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.
The target market for frontier models is CEOs who want to lay off entire departments of their company. So the long autonomy benchmarks would seem to be sending exactly the right signal.
Token price doesn't tell you much without knowing token efficiency.
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.
I totally agree, it’s like that as models become more intelligent, they are less understandable by most of people... but aren’t we humans doing the same?
The best ideas are usually the simplest to elaborate. If someone comes up with a convoluted scheme that are hard to understand or be adequately explained, it's usually fraud.
When claude speak in convoluted mess, they are often going off on tangents in real work that you asked it to do, too.
That believes that the world can be simplified into dichotomies, or at least, simplified. Sometimes problems are complex, and the solutions to them necessarily so. For example, cancer. I order to begin to understand that problem, you have to understand the utter complex scheme it has devised in order to exist. A 20 minute YouTube video isn't going to be able to begin to cover the basics of the subject, although there are some good ones, with clever analogies.
Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean it's fraud, although if someone is trying to dazzle you with clever words and names of institutions you recognize because they are selling you something, there's a good chance they're lying to you in order to get some money from you.
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.
You just simplified most of the problems people work on down to cancer complexity. Ironic, isn't it?
That's also simply not the case, most people are building CRUD apps with some frontend code and some accessory stuff like build systems etc., which while complex, can still be expressed in very plain, easy to understand language for anyone who's a bit technical.
Does not excuse the Claude slop.
If you are saying that there are problems more complex in this world than cancer to be solved, I'm not denying you.
Solving the problem right in front of you is easy. Stepping back and asking: is that a problem to be solved, is infinitely harder.
I did not use Claude to write my comment, so I don't know where that is coming from.
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.
Agreed. The more knowledge you amass on a subject, the more important it becomes to be extremely specific and nuanced - or your communications end up being incorrect. You become better at expressing your thoughts, but harder to understand.
The weird thing is, that's not what AI models seem to be doing. The prose is just weird.
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.
I'm going to assume it's very difficult to assume what a user actually knows from the very small signal that comes in a prompt.
effective communication is knowing who the audience is. Everyone naturally knows their audience to some extent, except for the "neuro-atypicals".
It is unsurprising that a LLM fails, without coaching, to effectively communicate.
I find people tend to lack nuance in their communication more often - leading to problems and misunderstandings.
If I don't grok an elaborate explanation, I can ask for clarification. If it's explained to me in an overly simplistic or unnuanced way, I'll walk away with a false sense of understanding.
That said, I'm sure we all have very different concentrations of these types of people and problems around us. I've definitely met some engineers who seem to actively try to make their language incomprehensible
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.
Look up the output-style setting, which is a bit stronger than putting it in the system prompt. The new "concise" setting is better than the default but in practice, Claude is a very stubborn model when it comes to these patterns and they're really hard to eliminate, mostly you can only hope to mitigate.
As for the wording of the prompt, you're pretty on point, I created a custom output style targeting mostly the first two you have there. Some people have wording that demands a certain technical standard or uses fancy words to describe what to avoid, but I haven't seen evidence those work better than asking plainly and I suspect the opposite: LLMs mimic the user to a degree so talking to it in terms of technical specifications and fancy words is an invitation to get them back.
This is /r/iamverysmart material (by Claude)
Part of intelligence is knowing your audience and communicating efficiently.
I expect the next Anthropic release to finally reduce the prevalence of Claudish
Based on?
It's pretty much the biggest complaint of Claude compared to its competitors, so they really should adress it .
If they fix Claudish, they've earned me back as a max customer!
Fable 5.1 is not there quite there yet.
They need to get that Sonnet 3.5 magic back.
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
or
from src/bun_core/Progress.rs
Perhaps you haven't had the chance to use it, but 3.8 flash is the best model for talking too. Even routing Claudes output through 3.8 to have it explain whats going on is a breath of fresh air
gemini 3.8 flash?
yes
I would if they let me bring the subscription I have to the harness of my choice.
Agreed. It's very capable for something carrying the "flash" label, super fast, and very clear to read.
it's definitely not bigger. smaller if anything looking at how much faster it is
FYI a quick fix for claudish is to ask for the response to be in ASD-STE100 (Simple Technical English). Then it is far more readable. But I would agree that this is an annoyance and shouldn't require user workaround to get something readable.
Does not work for Claude, at least for me and I put it as the system prompt
I don’t think system prompts are particularly reliable way to do much at all. It’s better to put it as a hook after each response, or a skill at least so you can trigger it at will if you don’t want it everytime.
Do you think they're unreliable based on the position in the conversation or other factors?
This fixed claude! Thanks!
Using a variety of models feels similar to the benefit of having a team of individuals from different backgrounds.
Wonder if we'd benefit from a much more specialized + task-specific benchmarks to paint a clearer picture like this. A benchmark solely for frontend, ruby, hardware, etc.
Agreed, Claude has a "Claude Design" tool but doesn't publish any frontend brenchmarks. Maybe the industry will develop one.
I've noticed Chatgpt 5.6 Sol High, on the chat interface, inventing words that are a mixture of Portuguese and English. Like "hardcodar" a mix of "hardcode" and the most common verb ending in Portuguese "-ar". Some don't have a single google hit
I don't know if it's the plain english or what, but I really like Grok for legal research (as opposed to code). It's got a noticeable edge in getting to the point compared to Opus 5.
I've found grok 4.6 speaks heavily in Claudish. It especially likes using verbs as nouns.
What's with the deceptive graph on top? Not including Astra can't have been an oversight, did the model compare poorly to it?
I wonder if that means that SpaceX evals show that they consider astra better than fable or that they hate Sam&co so much they don't want to show their stuff.
this is exactly it.
https://openai.com/index/our-decision-on-cursor-following-it...
Its because of this. You can't use Astra in Cursor, and cursorbench uses cursor as the harness. They can't actually benchmark it using their harness hence why its not included.
They have Astra in other benchmarks lower on the page. They just don't want to show it winning
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.
https://openai.com/index/our-decision-on-cursor-following-it...
This explains why. Mentioned in another comment, but cursorbench explicitly tests with Cursor as the harness, and OpenAI doesn't allow them to use Astra in Cursor.
That's not accurate. OpenAI doesn't allow Grok to provide Astra to Cursor customers anymore, but it doesn't ban anyone from using Astra via alternative harnesses.
If Cursor wanted to include Astra in CursorBench nothing would stop them, they could easily have spent half an hour vibecoding in OpenAI API key support - if it hadn't been convenient to neglect to do that.
Even if they could do that (workaround to include Astra in CursorBench), that has no practical consequences for Cursor users and that's what I as a Cursor user (what I use for dev, though I use ChatGPT for non-dev stuff) care about.
It would make the benchmark way better obviously, by showing how their new model compares to their competitors, the whole point of benchmarks and graphs.
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?
That said, I don't expect them to benchmark Astra in their Cursor harness given the situation.
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?
Deceptive? An extremely quick google search would answer your question. OpenAI pulled out of Cursor before they released Astra so it never got that benchmark.
Pulled out from letting them resell Astra access, that's not a limitation on running a benchmark.
In my experience Grok especially inside Grok build is pretty solid choice, it’s a no nonsense model and stays on its course. Another surface where I truly enjoy the experience of using Grok model is Grok bot
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!
Waiting on simonw "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle " benchmark to judge this 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...
I tried in Omp (Oh-my-pi), and so far it's really problematic.
It will loop in thinking mode ("Let me implement those fixes: Fix 1, Fix 2, Fix 3 .... Fix 80, Fix 81"), ignore the AGENTS.md instructions, corrupt plan files, etc etc... I have 5.6 Sol as advisor/watchdog, and it blocks every turn, I never saw this. Quite a shame, 4.6 wasn't so bad.
OMP is a joke. don't use that garbage
Can you explain your opinion? I'm curious but such vague comments won't convince me.
Probably the same reason as oh-my-zsh, you don't need 90% of it. Further compounding the problem in an agent harness is that you are polluting the context window by throwing the kitchen sink at it.
I've been experimenting with omp because:
- it allows different models within one session via roles (I only have API, so pay per token)
- it's much more likely (ime) to use the LSP over grep for determining how code fits together
But I agree a 20k+ starting context is way overkill.
I find it's very hard to get information on harnesses people are using. I have to stay model agnostic so I avoid claude, codex, cursor, etc. I've used and tried opencode, which worked well, but obviously lacks the above features.
Does anyone have a resource for following what people are actually being productive with? With so much vibe going on it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
you are a joke if you think omp is a joke.
what do you use and why do you prefer it over omp
Congratulations to the team!
Did 4.6 not have an x-high reasoning level? Why are they comparing 4.7 x-high with 4.6 high?
It did not. xhigh is new to grok.
Not sure on the API side, in Cursor you can always use 4.6 at xhigh.
We've only used it through API - but you're right, now API supports xhigh for 4.5-4.7.
Either way, the fact that xAI or SpaceXAI or whatever the name is, I can commend the team behind it on their rapid ascent and progress by being close and or on the frontier in several respects.
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 ? )
Grok it's really expensive. I'm getting really amazing results using DeepSeek 4.1 Flash for fraction of the price.
Brought to you by...
By no one. For the price of 1M token you can get more and with better results with other models.
What is the most secure way to use this model as someone who is lazy
I understand DeepSeek 4.1 Flash is available on US providers with Zero Data Retention if that is what you are asking.
Yes, but with subpar caching and higher cached token pricing, compared to directly using the DeepSeek platform.
Link for the lazy?
I like devcontainers
DeepSeek 4.1 Flash is garbage, it almost only produced trash code. if you do extremely dumb things it is maybe sometimes fine to use.
Not only that all DeepSeek is all garbage.
GLM or Kimi are better for my own personal projects. DS? uhm. it just keeps doing dumb crap
Well I "tried it out" I asked it one question, and it gave no answer and said "Sign up to use more!" I don't think I'll be doing that, no.
I can't think of a single dimension grok is winning on (capability, cost, voice), but want to stay open-minded -- anybody want to vouch for its capabilities in any domain?
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
The voice is the weird part. The early Grok 4 models had a very distinct presentation unlike anything else out there. Then suddenly it made a big jump in coding ability and started sounding just like every other model.
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.
After the cursor aquisition it's become a quite capable coding model. If you take cost into account, it's close to the top. OpenAI is maybe still #1, but I'd put Grok at #2 (again, including cost as a factor).
$2/million inout and $6/million output but I couldn't see any pricing information for cached input tokens?
cached input tokens are $0.50 per 1M (prompts under 200k tokens) and $1.00 per 1M (200k+)
Do other prices vary for >200,000 or just the cached tokens?
$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.
Astra fails in similar ways, and at similar frequency, as GPT 5.6 Sol does. It often goes way out of scope, or just stops prematurely, or tries to find odd and even dangerous workarounds when it gets stuck.
It's phenomenal at computer use and 3D stuff. I've been using it less and less for coding.
Not surprising considering Grok 4.7 is a 2T model, so Sol/Opus class, not Astra/Fable class.
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.
UPDATE: I tried again with the xAI API directly: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... - not a great deal of difference between reasoning levels, and this time xhigh and low used the same number of reasoning tokens for some reason.
For comparison here's a fresh run against Grok 4.6: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...
Are there good tools for doing context audits? I feel I have no good way to visualize what a new session is getting by default in a given repo without crawling through every potentially included markdown file
Poor fella doesn’t have a seat. Intriguing design where both pedals are on the same side of the frame. Balancing must be a challenge.
What is the default reasoning level?
I tried in Cursor and see a lot of improvements over Grok 4.6 svgs. The AA numbers indicate it's not very token efficient though: https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents?agents=co...
It’s a shame this model has such negative political baggage associated with it. It’s the only one I decided not to run in my LLM benchmarks[1].
1 - https://bench.killswitch-lang.org
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.
I think you're seeing a big shift around it.... since it's been markedly cheaper and also still easily available from OpenCode, it's getting large enterprise traction.
Codex has become my goto tooling. I used to be a Claude Max subscriber, but I was becoming disappointed with the quality of the output from Opus 5. Fable chewed through my usage too quickly to be practical. Moving to a Pro account w/ Codex was a big improvement. Sol had great output, and the usage was more than sufficient for most of my needs. However astra does tend to chew up usage, so when i've done to much of that, and it's became an issue Grok Build has beocme my second go to account. The output especially after the cursor purhcase has become quite good, and the usage has always been very generous.
I am using exactly the same flow.
Astra for deep dive investigations, Sol 5.6 at mid-level for day to day tasks, Grok 4.6 via Cursor for routine and low complexity tasks.
No doubt xAI has seen rapid progress, but it's been several months of them being "just behind" OpenAI and Anthropic. It seems the gap between just behind the frontier and pushing it is a lot wider than most people thought it was a year ago, and that's why a clear third contender in the frontier model space has yet to materialize.
Why Chinese models from Kimi, Deepseek are not added in comparison benchmarks?
Same reason Coca-Cola only mention Pepsi and Pepsi only mention Coca-Cola. It's an proven way to capture the market. You would rather split the pie in two rather than in 4,12 or 50 right?
I refuse to use Grok. Mostly because of the usual reasons - somehow this high profile AI model seems more disgusting than others and it is in a way impressive.
But also Xai doesn’t seem to care about user experience and long term support.
I can't take anyone seriously who uses grok seriously. I like to look at the cybertruck owners forum every so often because it's just... hilarious. And the amount of superfluous grok use over there is just insane. Half the posts I click in there will have a bunch of people dumping entire grok takes "why do people hate cybertruck owners?" "Because they're jealous and poor," sort of stuff that they just LOVE to post.
As a technical point of reference to compare against other llm stuff, sure, I'll glance at a report or benchmark but I really couldn't care less about anything to do with the project and it could blow other options away and I wouldn't touch it.
You should try it, it is less sycophantic than other models and is faster and better at most reasoning levels, don't confuse the twitter bots and services also named Grok with the frontier model itself
I am subscribed to ChatGPT, Claude, Kimi and GLM coding plans. 200$ one on GPT and the 20$ ish ones on all others. Recently added Grok and it has somehow bacome my second most used model.
For daily one off questions I prefer it because it is fast enough and I like the way it responds. I also use it for basic research like “find me a battery drill for this and that”.
Kimi and GLM feel extremely coding oriented. I use them for code reviews basically. I hate the way Anthropic models talk. GPT takes too much time and effort for that kind of stuff for some reason.
Grok happened to be a nice middle ground.
Does anyone have any experience with Grok's subscription? How does it compare price-wise to the API?
Well when I ran out of Grok SuperHeavy subscription ($300) once and tried to use extra credits to cover half a day remaining till reset, $50 in extra credits went in two hours. Based on that, subscription definitely lasts longer; Grok subscription just about covers a week of my work (sometimes a bit extra remains unused, sometimes it runs out half a day to a day early). And as a point of comparison, it lasts for doing same tasks as 2.5-3 weekly limits of Codex on 5.6 Sol did (using xhigh on both Sol and Grok); I needed 3x$200 Codex subscriptions to cover my weekly usage.
Significant regression in token efficiency compared to Grok 4.6 suggested by artificialanalysis.ai Intelligence Index Comparisons.
as someone who is limited by amazon bedrock support at work (no idea why we got stuck with the worst one) - grok is literally the only budget-ish model option, so nice to see it updated, Sol and Opus are just too rich for my blood. Luna is good but so slow at getting things done (tps wise it's fast)
Every Grok release obscures their cache pricing while highlighting their input/output pricing
From their headline comparison:
Long running agentic workflows are dominated by cache reads.
Just makes Grok sound deceptive, and more importantly, reliant on user's lack of understanding of costs aka predatory (which in turn is more infuriating)
I've been using 4.6 for some one-off game mods/utilities and it has done very well. "I have a very niche keyboard (Moonlander) and I play this very niche space sim, make me a SVG keyboard cheatsheet for it". Told me to grab keymap.c for the keyboard and inputmap.xml for the game's key bindings, churned for a while, then spit out a pretty good first attempt. Spent another hour of back and forth to refine it, and it's done: https://files.catbox.moe/x0u76x.svg
Excited to try 4.7. I hope they fixed the "it's not X, it's Y" that showed up in 4.6.
This thing is DOA. They compared 4.7 xhigh to 4.6 high to make it look like it improved. The reality is pretty bad: https://x.com/chetaslua/status/2102087511367618942
Looks like they have still problems with caching. Prize is double the other providers for cache hits... which is most of what I do. :/
Vals AI just affirm that Grok 4.7 is worse than Grok 4.6 (It ranks #24 on the Vals Index at 54.2%, down 5.0 points from Grok 4.6 (#14, 59.2%))
https://x.com/ValsAI/status/2102086608476590432
Is this an ad for Vals AI? Looking at their website, the rankings don't mesh with my observed utility for almost any model outside of fable and astra being good-ish.
Absolutely not. I know Elon retweet them a lot when Grok is good. This is how I discover the company.
I like to follow them and look for benchmark for each LLM release.