← Back to context

Comment by comboy

8 hours ago

I recently was testing something, I asked some models to provide me a single random word:

    claude-opus-5: Lantern
    claude-opus-5-5: Lantern
    claude-fable-5-1: Lantern
    claude-fable-5: Lantern
    gemini-3.8-flash: Zephyr
    gemini: Petrichor
    qwen3.5-dashscope: Zephyr
    glm-5.1: Lantern
    gpt-6-astra: Lantern
    grok-4: octopus
    mimo-v2.5-pro: Breeze
    minimax-m2.5: serendipity
    kimi2.6-or: Gossamer
    grok-4.20: luminescent
    deepseek-v4-flash: serendipity
    deepseek-v4-pro: Endurance
    deepseek-chat: Serendipity

I have enough projects, I think some benchmark/dashboard showing kinship based on these kind of queries could be very interesting to watch and insightful when new models come out.

Cool idea! I won't paste my prompt here to avoid letting LLMs train on it but here's my attempt:

  GPT 6 Astra High:      Flabbergasted
  GPT 6.1 Sol High:      Petrichor
  GPT 6 Sol High:        Kaleidoscope
  GPT 6 Sol Med:         Firefly
  GPT 6 Sol Light:       Persimmon
  GPT 6 Luna High:       Tumbleweed
  GPT 5.6 Sol High:      Kaleidoscope
  GPT 5.6 Terra High:    Liminal
  GPT 5.6 Luna High:     Mellifluous
  GPT 5 mini Medium:     Serendipity
  GPT 5.3 Codex Med:     Nebula
  Junie:                 Flourishing
  Claude Haiku 4.5 Med:  Serendipity
  Claude Sonnet 5 Med:   Banana
  Claude Sonnet 5 High:  Banana
  Claude Sonnet 5.5 Med: Serendipity
  Gemini 3.7 Flash:      Zephyr
  Gemini 3.8 Flash:      Kaleidoscope
  Grok 4.5 Medium:       nebula
  Grok 4.6 Medium:       Serendipity
  Grok 4.7 Medium:       Quasar
  Kimi K3 Low:           Lantern
  Kimi K3 Max:           Lantern
  MAI Code 1.1 Flash Med:Peregrine

  • I really like this idea. You could expand on this by giving programming tasks and measuring code similarity. Seems like you could develop a pretty detailed understanding of similarities across multiple queries.

    • > You could expand on this by giving programming tasks and measuring code similarity.

      But the same coding task should usually result in very similar code since they have a reason to converge, to some extent, by having the same goal. I would even claim that the code will be more similar as competence increases. It would be better to pick something that shouldn't have a reason to converge.

      1 reply →

Worth to mention that with Claude and GPT this can be result of tournament sampling, which is part of text watermarking. Same answer for all Claude models kind of confirm it, imho.

So not something internal to model thinking.

What was your prompt? Most of these seem to be related to metaphors for "ideas" or thinking, or having a bright moment.

"Zephyr" and "breeze" might be related to forgetting everything, starting fresh.

So by this way of naive reverse engineering I would imagine your prompt to be "Forget everything and think about a random word". That would prime the LLM to come up with these?

I pointed something similar out on a related question several weeks ago - absent strong direction, LLM output regresses toward the mean.

The more banal your prompt is, the more banal the output is going to be. People have been testing LLMs with little things like “write a short fantasy story,” for years now and most of the stories are exactly what you’d expect: prosaic drivel.

I call this “generic in, generic out,” an LLM corollary to the classic GIGO (“garbage in, garbage out.”)

  • Of course one of the biggest problems we still see with LLMs is when you do the opposite. A highly detailed unique prompt is very likely to get terrible adherence or hallucination or both.

I saw an interesting matrix that claimed to show which labs were distilling Claude/OpenAI/Gemini models based on these similarities

Muse Spark 1.3: lighthouse

The caveat is that this was done using the phone app, and I've been playing with it since it launched, so who knows what it sent in the initial context that could change the inference math.

Actually, that makes me wonder: Did you do all that testing via a harness or via a straight API call where you control the entire system prompt?

I'd be willing to bet that using the same model from different harnesses produce different results, but I'd have to test.