하이선
1K posts





5.6 sol growth is insane. the inference team has done heroic work to be able to support demand. we are going to move mountains to continue to scale, but it is possible there are some hiccups soon.





I worked on building an end-to-end encrypted email/docs/files/calendar app @skiffprivacy for 4 years and care deeply about privacy. ZDR and /privacy are always respected in Grok Build - and swapping your setting with /privacy deletes any synced data retoractively



Ok Grok 4.5 is insane. People are already building things that shouldn't be possible this fast. 10 wild examples:



Grok 4.5 solved it --- Answer: 더바른정육식당 (The Barun Jeongyuk Sikdang) 📍 서울 강남구 강남대로 482, 신논현/논현 · IG @barun_jo 1. Plate first. The tweet photo is a classic Korean 고깃집 사인 벽 — light vertical wood, white cards in clear plastic sleeves, red stickers “open AI / Ilya Sutskever,” date 2023. 9. 16. That style + Korean date format already points at a local meat house, not a touristy Instagram spot. 2. The only public breadcrumb. A Feb 2025 CHON Facebook post by 신근영 (Shin Keun-young / @rms1155) shares essentially the same plate: he paid for lunch, noticed the signature, and the owner said Ilya (with his Korean wife) had dined and signed. No name given — exactly why the original challenge works. 3. Date unlocks geography. 2023.9.16 lands on Prompter Day Seoul 2023 (SKT × OpenAI), prelims that weekend, finals at Dreamplus Gangnam (신논현/역삼). So search shifted from “random Korea BBQ” → 신논현 / 논현 / 역삼 정육식당 with celebrity signature walls. 4. Shortlist + wall matching. Candidates with dense 사인 벽 near Dreamplus: 더바른정육식당, 산솔 신논현, 대운목장, a few quieter 드-슐랭 정육. Cross-checked public wall photos against the hardware in the tweet (vertical wood + laminated white cards, not door-writing / yellow sticky notes / free-form paper). 5. The lock. Google Images for “더바른정육식당 사인 벽” surfaces the same wall system — same wood, same clear sleeves, same card instagram.com/barun_jo/p/Cuh…

SpaceXAI's Grok 4.5 takes the #1 spot on AutomationBench-AA with a score of 51%, ahead of Claude Fable 5 (49%) and Claude Opus 4.8 (48%) at roughly a quarter of their cost per task - the first model to complete more than half of workflow objectives without breaking any business rules AutomationBench-AA, our independent leaderboard for @zapier’s AutomationBench, tests whether AI agents can automate real SaaS workflows while adhering to business rules. The test set is private to prevent contamination. Models complete 657 tasks across 40 simulated app environments including Gmail, Google Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, and HubSpot, and the headline score is the share of objectives completed without violating any guardrails. Key takeaways: ➤ Grok 4.5 completes more objectives than any other model: It completes 79.9% of task objectives and strictly passes 21.9% of tasks. This is the highest we’ve measured on both outcomes, exceeding Claude Fable 5’s 73.3% objective completion and Claude Opus 4.8’s 19.3% of fully-completed tasks ➤ Grok 4.5 pushes out the Pareto frontier of score vs. cost per task: At $0.34 per task, it is both cheaper and higher-scoring than every other leading model - Claude Fable 5 ($1.35 per task), Claude Opus 4.8 ($1.46), GPT-5.5 (xhigh, $1.28), and Gemini 3.5 Flash (high, $0.49) ➤ It is extremely token-efficient: Grok 4.5 uses ~8k output tokens per task, the fewest of any leading model - less than a quarter of Claude Opus 4.8 (32k) and a third of Gemini 3.5 Flash (24k). Its total token usage of 0.44M per task is among the lowest on the leaderboard. Low cost is driven by this efficiency as well as low token pricing ➤ Grok 4.5 uses fewer turns with many parallel tool use: Grok 4.5 resolves tasks in ~16 turns, fewer than GPT-5.5 (xhigh, 25) and less than half of Gemini 3.5 Flash (high, 35), while making the most tool calls per task of any leading model (52.5). It batches 3.3 tool calls per turn, compared to ~2.5 for Claude Opus 4.8 and ~2.0 for GPT-5.5 (xhigh) ➤ Guardrails still get broken: Grok 4.5 triggers 0.63 violations per task, above Claude Opus 4.8 (0.55) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (0.46). At 13.0 objectives completed per violation, it trails Gemini 3.5 Flash (15.0) and Claude Opus 4.8 (13.5) ➤ Its strongest lead is in the hardest domain: Grok 4.5 completes 71% of Finance objectives, the domain with the lowest average score, ahead of Claude Fable 5 (64%) and Claude Opus 4.8 (62%) Congratulations to @SpaceXAI and @elonmusk on topping the leaderboard!













