Unfortunate. The Grok team built a phenomenal model. I use it all the time and it very often out performs GPT and Claude, on coding and STEM research related tasks. I was part of the beta for a while Grok 4.2 Beta with multi-agents and it was just amazingly good.

People aren't using it for reasons other than its capabilities. I mean, I don't think my boss would approve a paid Grok subscription for example.

> People aren't using it for reasons other than its capabilities.

This is very true. I have no idea how it performs, as I wouldn't use it even if I was paid for that. Wouldn't matter if it was the best model available, in my view the name is so thoroughly tainted by now that you would get a reputational hit just by admitting to use it.

> People aren't using it for reasons other than its capabilities.

This is a fact of life, though. "Who created it" is a valid and common reason to rule out using a particular product, even one with objectively good quality.

Have you tried the 5.3 Codex Xhigh, 5.4 Xhigh, Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1?

All of them (even Gemini, the worst of the bunch) far outclass Grok on everything I've thrown at them, especially coding.

Grok is good at summarizing what's happening on twitter though.

There is no way in hell Grok is better than Gemini. Google has the advantage of much more efficient and faster inference, with a lot more data sets.

Secondly, would you trust a model, especially for STEM research, that consistently has training loops done on it to make it to adhere to what only Musk considers as truth?

Honestly, comments like yours really make me super suspicious of whether you are a bot or not.

My experience was quite different. It was on par with open source models from China (and it was priced as much) and could never replace Sonnet/Opus/GPT5.x.

Yes, the white genocide and mechahitler episodes have suppressed adoption.