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 same AI slop as the others imho.
(This is about Grok 4.6, I didn't test 4.7 yet).
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.
zug_zug · · focus · HN ↗
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?
puszczyk · · focus · HN ↗
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
svachalek · · focus · HN ↗
puszczyk · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]