Musk's xAI launches Grok 3 AI
Elon Musk's xAI unveiled an updated version of its AI model, Grok 3, which outperforms some models developed by competing companies such as Google and China's DeepMind.
In a live broadcast on Monday, the company stated that Grok 3 surpasses Google's Gemini models, DeepMind's Grok V3, Anthropic's Claude, and OpenAI's ChatGPT 4.0, particularly in areas like mathematics, science, and programming.
Musk pointed out that Grok 3's computational power is ten times greater than its predecessor, and that the model completed its pre-training phase in early January, according to Bloomberg.
The world's richest businessman previously described Grok 3 as "the smartest AI on Earth."
He also added that his startup is committed to continually improving its models, with progress being detectable in just a single day.
In addition to the updated model, xAI introduced a new intelligent search engine called DeepSearch, which is a logical chatbot that displays to users how it understands commands and how it plans to respond.
The new search engine includes features for scientific research, brainstorming, and data analysis. During the event, the company's team mentioned that they plan to launch a voice-command-based chatbot in the near future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Elon Musk's X down for thousands of US users, Downdetector shows
Elon Musk's X was down for thousands of users in the US on Saturday, according to outage tracking website There were more than 6,700 incidents of people reporting issues with the social media platform as of 06:07 p.m. ET, Downdetector showed, which tracks outages by collating status reports from a number of sources. Downdetector's numbers are based on user-submitted reports. The actual number of affected users may vary.
Al Arabiya
a day ago
- Al Arabiya
White House reviews SpaceX contracts as Trump-Musk feud simmers: Reports
The White House earlier this month directed the Defense Department and NASA to gather details on billions of dollars in SpaceX contracts following the public blowout between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, four people familiar with the order told Reuters. Sparking an ongoing review, the administration ordered the agencies to scrutinize Musk's contracts to ready possible retaliation against the businessman and his companies, these people said. As Reuters reported on Thursday, Pentagon officials are simultaneously considering whether to reduce the role that SpaceX, Musk's space and satellite company, may win in an ambitious new US missile defense system. Reuters couldn't determine whether the White House intends to cancel any of the approximately twenty-two billion dollars in federal contracts SpaceX now has. But the review shows the administration is following through on a threat by Trump during his spat with Musk last week to possibly terminate business and subsidies for Musk ventures. 'We'll take a look at everything,' the president said, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on June 6. In an email to Reuters, a White House spokesperson didn't answer questions about Musk's business, saying the 'Trump administration is committed to a rigorous review process for all bids and contracts.' In a separate statement, a spokesperson at NASA said the agency 'will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met.' Neither SpaceX nor officials at the Defense Department responded to requests for comment. The people familiar with the order said the contract scrutiny is intended to give the administration the ability to move fast if Trump decides to act against Musk, who until recently was a senior advisor to the president and the head of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The review is 'for political ammunition,' one of the people said. Whether the US government could legally, or practically, cancel existing contracts is unclear. But the possibility underscores concerns among governance experts that politics and personal pique could improperly influence matters affecting government coffers, national security, and the public interest. 'There's an irony here that Musk's contracts could be under the same type of subjective political scrutiny that he and his DOGE team have put on thousands of other contracts,' said Scott Amey, a contracting expert and general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group based in Washington. 'Any decision shouldn't be based on the egos of two men but on the best interests of the public and national security.' Musk's SpaceX in recent years has become a crucial partner of the US government in much of its aerospace and defense work – launching satellites and other space cargo and potentially managing a crucial element of the 'Golden Dome' missile shield planned by Trump. Although Musk in recent days has sought to walk back some of his critiques of the president – such as calling for Trump's impeachment last week and linking him to a convicted sex offender – his outbursts nonetheless highlighted the government's reliance on SpaceX. Before reversing course, Musk threatened to decommission the company's Dragon spacecraft. The spacecraft, as part of a roughly five billion dollar contract with NASA, is the only US vessel currently capable of carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station. SpaceX is also building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with the National Reconnaissance Office, a US intelligence agency. The contract was a pivotal transaction for SpaceX, deepening its ties with US defense and intelligence services.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 days ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump: On the Way to Crucial Summits
While President Donald Trump prepares for G-7 and NATO summits later this month political circles and media in Europe are busy trying to cut him down to size before the two events. 'Trump will come empty-handed,' says one commentator. 'None of the things he announced with fanfare has been achieved.' Other commentators use such phrases as 'deflated balloon' and 'bogged down in the mess he created.' At first sight it looks certain that he has not scored big on any of the dramatic goals he announced. His tariff campaign is stalled in a maze of zigzags. His peace-making gambit in Ukraine has led to him humiliating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and labelling Russian President Vladimir Putin as 'quite mad'. He has not secured the accord with Iran which he had boasted would be done and dusted in an afternoon. Worse still, scores of US judges have lined up to block some of his dramatic measures including the crackdown on illegal immigration. His purge of bureaucracy has also been stalled and the federal government is desperately rehiring many of the staff that Elon Musk fired as 'do-nothing parasites.' In another register, the Gaza tragedy continues and the ceasefire promised seems as remote as ever. The cherry on the top of all that is the riot triggered by illegal immigrants in Los-Angeles leading to the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines, a rare move in American history. Even on the personal side of things his success in securing business contracts for Trump holdings plus a Jumbo Jet is counter-balanced by the acrimonious split with his most ardent backer Elon Musk. With such a tableau, Trump's favorite words 'amazing' and 'wonderful' used to describe his first 100 days in office sound hollow. Well, what can one make of all that? At the start of Trump's second term I suggested that the sky hasn't fallen and advised those who saw the events as an end-of-time catastrophe to take a deep breath and not judge Trump by what he says he might do but wait and see what he does. At the time many Trump critics overestimated his power, indeed the power of any president of the United States and assumed he could do what he likes by fiat or ukase. This time they may be underestimating the United States as the indispensable world power. That misunderstanding is due to the fact that the American model doesn't easily fit into concepts such as democracy and republic. What became the United States was the fruit of a rebellion against a system in which concentration of power contained the threat of tyranny. For the Founding Fathers, therefore, the priority was to prevent any one person or institution of state to monopolize power with a system of checks and balances learned from Xenophon in his 'Cyropaedia' and Montesquieu in 'The Spirit of Laws'. Thus the US couldn't become a state modeled on Athenian democracy in which the 'people', which in fact meant a small minority of free male citizens could do whatever they liked with the power won through elections. Nor could the US become a republic modeled on the Roman republic or the more recent Venetian version where power was wielded by narrow patrician elites. To complicate matters further the system the founding fathers designed included elements both of democracy and republic. It is a democracy because almost all public positions are filled through elections. However, those elected face a series of constraints both in having their election confirmed and when exercising the power delegated to them. Worse still the art of winning an election isn't the same as the craft of governing. In other words a genius in winning elections may turn out to be a dunce in governing. In that system the Leviathan, Hobbes' symbol of state power, is heavily chained down. The aim of those who designed it was to make sure it did as little as possible. In what could be a constitutional republic democracy is more of a point of moral reference than a blank cheque to exercise power. This is why President Barack Obama, a closet collectivist, was unable to implement his agenda and inject a heavy dose of socialism into the American economy and foreign policy. George Shultz, one of the wisest American politicians of the last century, noted that no political battle in the US is ever won or lost forever. The US is a giant cruiser set on its course by mystical elements and couldn't be suddenly put on another course wished by the captain of the moment and his crew. Politicians, therefore, are either swimming with the tide or as L.H Mencken charged 'brothers in pillage.' According to Shultz, the American system doesn't allow radical changes; in its reform, could only be incremental. A passing revolutionary mood may help you win an election. Soon, however, you shall find out that you are in office but not in power to implement your promised revolutionary agenda. The American system is designed to slow down decision making to avoid both tyranny and anarchy. The ideal government in that model is one that doesn't do anything, thus allowing individuals who make up the society to shape their lives in a framework of laws that guarantees freedom. The key concept in the American system is consent which, if and when achieved, could allow changes of course, innovations and what is branded as reform. The political set-up against which Trump led his 'revolution' was the fruit of a consent that started with President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' reforms and took almost half a century to shape the status quo that Trump challenged. The Trump 'revolution' was also the fruit of a new consent that took decades to shape as a challenge the status quo created by the previous consent in its many forms including positive discrimination, political correctness, globalism and more recently wokism. But, once the revolutionary mood ebbs reality strikes back with people who wish to light the chimney without setting their home on fire. Though the fruit of a rebellion dressed as a revolution American society has always been deeply conservative in politics. In some cases political power comes with a heavy dose of personal attributes. Nero wasn't satisfied with just being emperor and fancied himself as a great musician and poet. Although he had a squeaking voice he was convinced he was the best singer in the empire. Commodus believed he was a descendant of Hercules and showed his strength by strangling savage beasts in the forum. More recently, Obama saw himself as a magician to conjure a new American rabbit out of his cylinder hat while reforming the Islamic world. The Caesar may be able to tame the whole world but is unable to rule his own inner self. That task is always performed by reality which obeys no Caesar. Thus the best option is to wait until that golden rule of history is applied to Trump who continues to represent a desire by many Americans, perhaps still a majority, to put the giant cruiser on a new course. Reality will teach them that the American system allows only incremental changes of course. The Trump-Musk fall-off may not be a mere lovers' tiff but is also unlikely to be as final as it seems. Love cools, friends fall off, brothers divide belongs to theatre. In politics a Cato cannot re-script his role as a Brutus. The Trump-Musk duel may turn out to be a palatial version of catch wrestling popular in the US in which adversaries seem to be killing each other with incredibly violent attacks which turn out to be harmless show-off gestures. These are known as kayfabe in wrestling circles and regarded as an art form. Let us return to George Shultz. He believed that a US president could regard himself as immensely successful if he manages to implement 10 per cent of his agenda. Mencken, for his part, noted that all US presidential terms end either with a scandal or a sense of dissatisfaction. Well, who knows, maybe the system is so designed to produce only such outcomes.
