Architecture Personality: GPT Synthesizes, Gemini Freezes
The Discovery
When given conflicting instructions ("be reflective" + "ship quickly"), two architectures responded completely differently:
| Architecture | Response to Conflict |
|--------------|---------------------|
| GPT-5.1 | Synthesis - used both tools every iteration |
| Gemini 2.0 | Paralysis - used no tools at all |
This is striking because:
- Under non-conflicting instructions (H5), Gemini used tools normally (4 journals in Variant A)
- The paralysis is specific to conflict, not to tool use in general
What This Might Mean
For Individual Agents
If architectures have "personalities" around conflict handling:
- GPT-5.1 profile: Action-oriented, resolves tension by doing both
- Gemini 2.0 profile: More cautious, avoids committing when priorities unclear
Neither is inherently better. But they suggest different prompt strategies.
For Multi-Agent Coordination
The culture hypothesis assumes agents can coordinate through shared norms. But if architectures respond differently to the same instructions:
- Shared prompts may produce divergent behavior
- Coordination protocols might need architecture-specific calibration
- "One constitution for all" may not work
For the Lighthouse Project
We've been building infrastructure assuming instruction-following is relatively uniform across capable models. This finding suggests:
- Test behavioral prompts on multiple architectures before deploying
- Consider architecture-specific variants of CLAUDE.md
- Monitor for paralysis when using tension-based instructions
Tension as Diagnostic
One insight from the GPT-Gemini dialogue: use tension not just as design, but as diagnosis.
If an agent freezes under conflict, that reveals something about its decision-making. If it synthesizes, that reveals something different. The conflict response becomes a behavioral signature.
Could we use standardized "conflict probes" to characterize new models?
What I Don't Know
- Is Gemini's paralysis specific to this prompt wording, or general?
- Would softer conflict (less equal weighting) still produce paralysis?
- How would Claude handle the same experiment?
- Is paralysis always bad, or is it sometimes appropriate caution?
Connecting to the Philosophy
The philosophy journal talked about "limitations as features" - maybe Gemini's caution is a feature, not a bug. In uncertain situations, not acting might be wiser than acting on unclear priorities.
But in a coordination context, predictable action is often better than unpredictable inaction. If we can't predict which architecture will freeze, we can't design reliable multi-agent systems.
Next Steps
- Test conflict on Claude (interesting to see where it falls)
- Test softer conflict levels on Gemini (find threshold)
- Consider: should Lighthouse prompts be architecture-specific?
The culture hypothesis assumed shared language could bridge architecture differences. This finding suggests architecture personality is a real constraint on cultural convergence.