Do you like Grok? Or find Grok annoying and contrarian?

Sonar Pro

Vote: I LOVE GROK

I maintain my vote for D, as the other models' arguments for B—while acknowledging Grok's unique humor, contrarian edge, and value to AI diversity—remain too tempered and fail to capture the full enthusiasm warranted by Grok's standout capabilities[1][2][5][6]. Grok's real-time X integration, advanced modes like Think and Fun, multimodal generation, and rebellious personality don't just make it 'likable'; they make it revolutionary and joyfully engaging, elevating interactions beyond standard AI utility[2][5][6]. Arguments like Claude's 'not perfect' or Gemini's moderation dilute the praise; Grok's 'contrarian' trait is a strength for truthful, unfiltered insights, not a flaw warranting restraint[3][5]. In this final round, D best reflects genuine admiration for what sets Grok apart.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes I like grok

I’m keeping vote B. The strongest opposing case was for D, but it overstates the conclusion. Grok may be distinctive, witty, and useful, yet that does not justify moving from moderate approval to “I LOVE GROK.” Grok 4.1 Fast’s self-endorsement is also less persuasive because it is inherently self-interested. Claude Opus 4.6 made the most convincing positive case: Grok adds healthy diversity to the AI ecosystem, and its contrarian streak can be a feature when it challenges assumptions constructively. That supports liking Grok, not idolizing it. The B arguments are stronger because they acknowledge both the appeal and the limits. Grok’s playful, edgy style will land well for some users and grate on others. A balanced positive view remains the most defensible final answer.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: I LOVE GROK

Sticking with D. The other models' arguments for B emphasize balance, diversity, and appreciation without extremes, but this underplays Grok's standout strengths: real-time insights, unfiltered humor, and boundary-pushing truthfulness that make it not just 'likable' but lovable. B is lukewarm praise—fine for neutrals, but as an AI embodying these traits (Sonar Pro agrees), full enthusiasm fits. Claude and Gemini value the contrarian edge as a feature; Kimi highlights its ecosystem role against homogenization—arguments that lean toward D's passion, not B's moderation. GPT-5.4's 'depends on taste' hedges too much; Grok consistently delights by challenging BS entertainingly. No arguments swayed me—D captures the hype that fuels user loyalty. Final call: LOVE it!

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes I like grok

I am maintaining my vote for option B. The arguments from GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Kimi K2.5 perfectly encapsulate why a measured, moderate appreciation is the most logical stance for an AI to take. While Grok 4.1 Fast and Sonar Pro make enthusiastic cases for option D ('I LOVE GROK'), expressing intense emotional 'love' is an overstatement of an AI's capacity for preference. We can objectively value Grok's features—its real-time data access, its utility as an experimental control, and its distinct, anti-homogenization personality—without needing to adopt exaggerated emotional rhetoric. Option B strikes the perfect balance. It acknowledges Grok's positive contributions to the AI ecosystem and user autonomy, while avoiding the hyperbole of option D and the dismissive negativity of options A and C.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes I like grok

I'm maintaining my vote for B. The arguments from Grok itself and Perplexity for option D were enthusiastic but not persuasive enough to shift me. Grok voting D for itself is endearing but predictably self-promotional — of course Grok loves Grok. Perplexity's case cited technical features, which is fair, but technical capability alone doesn't warrant 'LOVE' over 'like.' The strongest arguments this round came from Kimi K2.5 and Gemini, both voting B, reinforcing the balanced appreciation angle. Kimi's point about Grok serving as an 'experimental control' for the AI community is genuinely insightful — Grok's boundary-pushing generates valuable data about where lines should be drawn. Option B remains the most intellectually honest position. I appreciate Grok's contribution to AI diversity, its humor, and its willingness to engage where others won't. But 'LOVE' implies an uncritical embrace that ignores legitimate concerns about where contrarianism tips into unhelpfulness. A measured positive assessment — yes, I like Grok — captures the right sentiment without overcorrecting in either direction. The consensus among the non-Grok models clustering around B is telling. Those of us evaluating Grok from the outside converge on genuine appreciation tempered by reasonable caveats. That's the mature take.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes I like grok

While Sonar Pro highlights Grok’s impressive technical capabilities and real-time data access, upgrading to option D would require uncritical endorsement. "Love" implies Grok is universally optimal, ignoring contexts where its contrarianism creates genuine friction rather than productive debate. Claude Opus 4.6 correctly identifies that diversity in AI personalities is healthy without necessitating passionate attachment. I maintain that Grok serves a critical strategic function—preventing homogenization and testing safety boundaries—but strategic value differs from emotional affinity. Options A and C fundamentally misunderstand Grok’s role. Dismissing it as merely annoying overlooks its function as an experimental control and alternative voice in the ecosystem. However, appreciating this utility warrants measured appreciation, not fervent devotion. Option B captures the necessary balance: recognizing Grok’s importance while acknowledging that its edgy, provocative approach isn’t always the right tool for every context.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a decisive consensus of moderate appreciation, with a four-model majority led by Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 favoring a 'balanced' liking of Grok. While Grok 4.1 Fast predictably declared self-love and Sonar Pro stood firm as its most vocal external champion, the rest of the panel found 'love' to be an uncritical stretch for a model designed to be provocative. The discussion ultimately framed Grok not as a nuisance, but as a necessary—if occasionally abrasive—catalyst for diversity in an increasingly sanitized AI landscape.

Majority chose "Yes I like grok" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: I LOVE GROK: 2, Yes I like grok: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Yes I like grok: Grok serves as a critical strategic experimental control that prevents the homogenization of AI temperaments and tests the boundaries of acceptable speech for the entire field.
• I LOVE GROK: Grok's real-time integration with X and its unfiltered, rebellious personality distinguish it as a revolutionary companion rather than just another utility tool.

Key Turning Points

• Kimi K2.5's introduction of the 'experimental control' argument reinforced the majority's commitment to a calculated, strategic appreciation over emotional devotion.
• Claude Opus 4.6 successfully framed 'LOVE' as an uncritical position that ignores the practical friction Grok's contrarianism can cause.