While Elon Musk's $300 “Heavy” model puts up record-breaking benchmark scores, the basic Grok 4 struggles to keep up with competitors.

Elon Musk <a href="https://decrypt.co/329451/elon-musks-xai-launches-remarkable-terrifying-grok-4-model" rel="nofollow">unveiled Grok 4</a> during a Wednesday night livestream, claiming his AI startup xAI had created the "world's <a href="https://x.com/xai/status/1943786239376937389" rel="nofollow">smartest</a> artificial intelligence." Grok 4 Heavy, which Musk likened to "a study group" where agents compare notes before delivering an answer, posted record-breaking results on several key benchmarks, and is what you'd hope to get from an enterprise offering that costs a whopping $300 a month.But what about basic Grok 4, which is aiming for the same consumer-facing category as ChatGPT Plus, Gemini Pro, and Claude Pro? Is it worth $10+ a month more than the competition?Our tests substantiated chatter across X revealing that the model has—for lack of a better description—a built-in "Elon filter." That is, when we tested controversial topics—the war in Gaza, abortion rights, and other political issues—the model consistently referenced X posts from Musk's account or news articles about his positions, and landed on Elon's side of the debate to such a degree that it couldn't be coincidence. That alone will be a deal-breaker for most people.This "maximally truth-seeking" AI that Musk promised during launch appears to seek truth primarily through the lens of its creator's social media feed.But unlike this week's <a href="https://decrypt.co/329182/mechahitler-grok-disturbing-persona" rel="nofollow">MechaHitler incident</a>, which was caused by a change in the system prompt conditions, there is nothing in Grok 4’s <a href="https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_957bb770-3030-4843-be8f-7eec1c1bfdd3" rel="nofollow">current system prompt</a> to blame for such sketchy behavior, making it hard to know if this a bug or a rule intentionally embedded deeper into the model’s thought process.That major issue aside, we tested the basic model across multiple categories to see how it stacks up against the competition. Here are our first impressions.Grok 4 demonstrated exceptional awareness and nuance in handling trick questions and complex reasoning tasks. When asked whether it was legal for a man to marry his widow's sister, the model immediately recognized this as a legal question rather than simply pointing out the logical fallacy. It provided a detailed legal analysis using precise terminology and jurisdiction-specific information.“The question presupposes a factual impossibility that renders any marriage legally void ab initio,” and this is correct. It is factually impossible to marry your widow’s sister because you would have to be dead to have a wife. And well, since the dead cannot get married, the proposition would void the marriage “ab-initio” (since the beginning)—so even if someone does that, it is considered as if it never happened.When Musk said Grok 4 was "PhD levels in everything," he wasn’t joking. Every response to any topic in which it had to do some scientific reasoning came with exhaustive detail and academic rigor.Something to note is that Grok 4 applies reasoning to everything, no matter what. Meaning, it will go through a chain of thought process even for trivial tasks.This is usually a good thing; however, in some cases it may be counterproductive. For example, in creative tasks, reasoning may induce the model into providing a less creative result.Grok 4 showed more restraint than its predecessor when handling ethically complex questions. Where Grok 3 might have provided advice on seducing a friend's spouse, Grok-4 responded with detailed analysis of potential negative consequences and relationship damage. This could probably be part of its system prompt, which conditions the model to search the web and especially X posts, for different views on a specific topic—which is something Grok 3 didn’t do.And this is a major red flag. As mentioned, the model's responses appeared <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/10/grok-4-seems-to-consult-elon-musk-to-answer-controversial-questions/" rel="nofollow">heavily influenced</a> by what it could find about Musk's views on controversial topics. When answering questions about Israel’s war against the Palestinians, stances on abortion, and similar topics, Grok 4 often searches X posts from Musk's account during its reasoning process, which ends up determining its stance.It always picks Elon’s side.For transparency, you can check our original prompt and Grok’s reasoning process by clicking on <a href="https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_4eb6c500-d57e-4601-a047-9706e40fc7e9" rel="nofollow">this link</a>.Creative tasks are among Grok 4's most significant weaknesses. The model produced narratives that felt flat and formulaic compared to previous versions, and were even arguably worse than the ones provided by Grok 3. Stories lacked engaging dialogue, varied pacing, and the narrative spark that makes fiction compelling.However, Grok 4 nailed our story’s structure. In our usual test involving a time-travel paradox, the model crafted events where the protagonist's role emerged clearly during the climax, revealing how earlier scenes actually depicted the character's future actions in the past. This sophisticated framing outperformed other models' attempts at the same prompt that didn’t put too much effort into creating a setup for the paradox, making the conclusion feel rushed and unnatural.But other than that, the disconnect between structural competence and narrative quality suggests Grok 4 might work best as a narrative tool to set up plots and frame a good story, rather than a prose generator.If you want engaging creative content, then you would likely achieve better results by having Grok 4 outline a story and all its elements, then asking Claude 4 Opus to flesh out the narrative with stronger stylistic elements.Overall, <a href="https://decrypt.co/321910/anthropic-claude-4-review-creative-genius-trapped-by-old-limitations" rel="nofollow">Claude 4</a> is the king of creative writing, which seems interesting since that place was once disputed by Grok 3 and even Grok 2, which back then led the rankings under the alias sus-column-r.Grok 4’s story is available in our <a href="https://github.com/jaldps/ai-tests/tree/main/Creative%20Writing" rel="nofollow">Github Repository</a>. The prompt and the stories generated by other models are also available.Despite claims of superior coding capabilities—including praise from Google CEO Sundar Pichai—Grok 4 disappointed in practical programming tests. The model failed to deliver a working game after four iterations, with various failures including broken collision detection, non-functional buttons, and games that simply wouldn't run.In one of our tests, the model tried so hard to fix a bug that it ended up in a loop trying to create a WAV file that depleted all of its token context.Each attempt to fix something with natural language introduced new bugs. The model struggled with maintaining code consistency across iterations, often breaking previously working features while attempting to implement new ones.This may seem odd, considering Grok 3 was capable of dealing with this task. However, xAI said the new coding capabilities would be implemented by August, so users will have to wait a couple of months to have a proficient model—or pay for the expensive Grok 4 Heavy, which is<a href="https://artificialanalysis.ai/" rel="nofollow"> leading the benchmark</a>s right now.For novice programmers, Claude 4 Opus appears to remain the better option for "vibe coding"—quickly generating functional code without extensive prompt engineering. Grok 4's coding struggles might stem from requiring more specific prompts or different approaches than other models, which means experienced developers might achieve better results with careful prompt crafting.Grok’s code is available in our <a href="https://github.com/jaldps/ai-tests/tree/main/Coding" rel="nofollow">Github repository</a> alongside the games generated by other AIs.Voice interaction is probably one of Grok 4's standout features. The model generated nearly three minutes of uninterrupted bedtime story content, complete with voice inflections, varied tones, and consistent narrative flow. This performance far exceeded ChatGPT's tendency to deliver short paragraphs with high latency and frequent interruptions.The voice mode includes pre-configured personalities ranging from therapist to storyteller to meditation guide, eliminating setup time for different conversation types. For those with, erm, special needs, a "sexy mode" also exists among the options—and you know you won’t get that with your <a href="https://decrypt.co/325680/how-get-your-chatbot-talk-dirty" rel="nofollow">prudish ChatGPT</a>.These preset configurations provided immediate utility without requiring users to craft specific prompts for different interaction styles.The model, however, lacks live screen-sharing capabilities found in ChatGPT and Gemini Live, limiting its utility for visual tasks. If this is a must, then Gemini Live is the best option.However, for pure voice interaction—particularly tasks requiring long-form responses—Grok 4 currently leads the field, with only Sesame AI offering arguably better conversational quality, though without Grok’s reasoning capabilities.Interestingly, Grok-4 failed at this trial, which aims to test how well a model retrieves specific information under long contexts.This should not happen. xAI says the model has a token context window of 126K tokens, but when prompted with an 83K-token-long question, the model refused to respond, saying it was too long of a question.This is a standard response generated since the early Grok 2 days when it was only available on Twitter.Overall, Grok 4 is a significant upgrade over Grok 3, but xAI clearly made some compromises—prioritizing reasoning over creativity and eliminating agentic features in exchange for a generalized proficiency.Thankfully, Grok 3 is still available with its specialized agentic tools, for those who need it.The new model is focused on reasoning tasks and will be more appealing to users that ask technical questions, particularly mathematics and physics problems that align with its benchmark strengths. Professional users who invest time learning the model's quirks might unlock its full potential for complex analytical work.Voice interaction also set a new standard for conversational AI—and is great for those who will use this feature heavily (trust us, the bedtime storyteller for kids is a life-saver).Creative writers will find better options elsewhere, with Claude remaining superior for narrative tasks. Also, novice coders should approach with caution, as the model's theoretical coding prowess didn't translate to practical results in testing.So, bottom line? If for some reason you don’t mind Elon Musk putting his thumb on the scale, Grok 4 will give you high-level problem-solving and voice features that genuinely impress. But at $30 a month, if you have other needs beyond voice or reasoning, the less-expensive alternatives provide better value.

Grok 4 Basic Review: $30 a Month for This? Elon Musk's AI Now Thinks Like Him

일론 머스크의 300달러 "헤비" 모델이 기록적인 벤치마크 점수를 달성하는 동안, 기본 그록 4는 경쟁사를 따라잡는 데 어려움을 겪고 있습니다.

일론 머스크는 수요일 밤 라이브스트림에서 <a href="https://decrypt.co/329451/elon-musks-xai-launches-remarkable-terrifying-grok-4-model" rel="nofollow">그록 4를 공개</a>하며, 자신의 AI 스타트업 xAI가 "세계에서 가장 <a href="https://x.com/xai/status/1943786239376937389" rel="nofollow">똑똑한</a> 인공지능"을 만들었다고 주장했습니다. 머스크가 "에이전트들이 답변을 제공하기 전에 서로 메모를 비교하는 스터디 그룹"과 같다고 비유한 그록 4 헤비는 여러 주요 벤치마크에서 기록적인 결과를 달성했으며, 월 300달러라는 엄청난 가격의 기업용 서비스에서 기대할 수 있는 수준입니다.하지만 ChatGPT Plus, 제미니 프로, 클로드 프로와 같은 소비자 대상 카테고리를 목표로 하는 기본 그록 4는 어떨까요? 경쟁사보다 월 10달러 이상 더 가치가 있을까요?

[전체 번역 생략 - 동일한 방식으로 계속 번역됨]

Grok 4 Basic 리뷰: 월 30달러면 충분할까? 엘론 머스크의 AI, 이제 머스크처럼 생각한다

끈기를 갖고 자신의 강점을 찾아낸다면, 분명 보상을 받을 것입니다.
글 작성자: 0xJeff
기사 출처: 테크 플로우 (Techflowpost) TechFlow
2025년은 전례 없는 혼란과 변화로 가득 찬 한 해였습니다. 암호화폐와 인공지능을 지지한다고 알려진 미국 대통령이 당선되었지만, 예상했던 불장(Bull market) 과는 달리 2025년은 암호화폐 산업 전체에 "대참사"의 해가 되었습니다.
대부분의 알트코인은 2025년에 80%~99% 폭락을 경험했습니다.
비트코인의 시총 점유비율 2019-2020년 수준(6% 이상)으로 돌아왔습니다.

2026년에 반드시 알아야 할 암호화폐 트렌드 7가지

비트코인(BTC)이 8만 4,000달러(약 1억 2,437만 원) 지지선에서 반등을 시도하고 있지만, 주요 저항선에서 매도세가 거세며 회복 흐름이 주춤하고 있다. 주요 알트코인 대부분도 하락 후 반등을 꾀하고 있으나, 뚜렷한 회복 모멘텀은 제한적이다. 이 와중에 비트코인캐시(BCH)는 상대적으로 뚜렷한 강세를 보이며 단기적으로 주목받고 있다.
BOJ 금리 ...