> * Grok 4.5 has an advantage on CursorBench: an earlier snapshot of the Cursor codebase was unintentionally included in training. The exact score impact is unclear. That data has been removed for future models. For a rundown of third-party benchmark scores, see the Grok 4.5 launch blog.
I don't know about those numbers, even assuming this was by mistake :)
Yeah. I get that many HN comments are just complaints (heck mine was too and just as negative and shaming). But how bad of a day must you be having to try to shame someone about how they choose to write up an experience they thought was neat. Whatever, free speech and all that. Hope OC's day gets better.
> If you care about how your content moves through the world now, including through AI systems, you have to care about caching. Not as a performance optimisation for human browsers, but as infrastructure for machine readership.
I think about what I do in these verbose situations; I learn to ignore most of the output and only take forward the important piece. That may be a success message or error. I've removed most of the output from my context window / memory.
I see some good research being done on how to allow LLMs to manage their own context. Most importantly, to remove things from their context but still allow subsequent search/retrieval.
Feedback loops are important to agents. In the article, the agent runs this build command and notices an error. With that feedback loop, it can iterate a solution without requiring human intervention. But the fact that the build command pollutes the context in this case is a double-edge sword.
> The noticeable spike [~20 percentage points] in May in the figure above [tool invocations] was largely attributable to one sizable account whose activity briefly lifted overall volumes.
The fact that one account can have such a noticeable effect on token usage is kind of insane. And also raises the question of how much token usage is coming from just one or five or ten sizeable accounts.
Good points here, particularly the ends not justifying the means.
I'm curious for more thoughts on "will drive more and more people out of jobs”. Isn't this the same for most advances in technology (e.g., steam engine, computers s, automated toll plazas, etc.). In some ways, it's motivation for making progress; you get rid of mundane jobs. The dream is that you free those people to do something more meaningful, but I'm not going to be that blindly optimistic :) still, I feel like "it's going to take jobs" is the weakest of arguments here.
Many people would not have found this cleaner without Googling, reading reviews, etc. While that may not be an ad directly, it's part of the marketing budget. So what needs to change?
I don't know about those numbers, even assuming this was by mistake :)