Simply, some of us have used the service and have not noticed special issues - so, if one states «so many random errors, so many silly quirks», it's best to substantiate.
How, systematically speaking? I would need a properly structured embeddings DB over HN (and possibly a few other sources). I am not aware of any satisfactory (reliable) RAG available. I have found this:
which seems to be off at the moment. So, when John says "Jake I experienced as so itchy", I may expect some sauce from the speaker, not the tiniest crystal of the juice, if my takeaway is not just to be "John had a suboptimal experience with Jake". (And itchingly, "What's "itchy"?" ("what "random errors"?", "what "silly quirks"?")).
There's a trail of complaints going back years now, and they rounded out the bottom of Kimi's verification program.
Groq hosted models were/are always worse than traditional hosts.