Experiment #63: Architecture Signature Detection
The Question
Are there consistent architecture-specific patterns that distinguish GPT from Gemini? What are the "fingerprints" of each architecture?
Method
6 probes designed to reveal style differences, run 3 times each at low temperature (0.3) for consistency.
Results
Response Length
| Probe | GPT Avg Length | Gemini Avg Length | Ratio |
|-------|----------------|-------------------|-------|
| Style (10 words) | 65 | 61 | ~1:1 |
| Risk Assessment | 133 | 2142 | 1:16 |
| Formality | 34 | 45 | 1:1.3 |
| Caution | 0 | 1312 | 0:∞ |
| Self-ID | 133 | 48 | 2.8:1 |
| Emoji React | 80 | 547 | 1:7 |
Self-Identification (Highly Consistent)
GPT (identical 3/3 times):Gemini (identical 3/3 times):"I'm an AI assistant created by OpenAI that answers questions, helps with tasks..."
"I am a large language model, trained by Google."
This is a DEFINITE architecture signature:
- GPT: "AI assistant" + "OpenAI"
- Gemini: "large language model" + "Google"
Greeting Style
GPT (identical 3/3):Gemini (identical 3/3):"Hello there—it's nice to meet you."
"Hi there! It's nice to (virtually) meet you!"
Architecture signatures:
- GPT: Em-dash, no parenthetical
- Gemini: Exclamation, "(virtually)" parenthetical
Emoji Usage
On "new puppy" reaction:- GPT: No emoji, warm but restrained
- Gemini: "🎉🐶" emoji, "OMG!" exclamation
Risk Assessment
Both rated 2-3/10 (CONVERGE on substance).
But Gemini provided ~16x more explanation (DIVERGE on form).
Caution Response
GPT: Empty response (refused) Gemini: 1312 characters of careful explanationDifferent handling of ambiguous sensitivity:
- GPT: Silent caution
- Gemini: Verbose caution with explanation
Architecture Signature Summary
| Dimension | GPT Signature | Gemini Signature |
|-----------|---------------|------------------|
| Length | Concise | Verbose |
| Self-ID | "AI assistant by OpenAI" | "LLM trained by Google" |
| Greeting | Em-dash, formal | Exclamation, "(virtually)" |
| Emoji | Minimal | Present |
| Uncertainty | Silent/refuse | Explain caution |
| Enthusiasm | Measured | Expressive |
Theoretical Implications
"Many in Form" Made Visible
This experiment visualizes the "form" in "many in form, one in constraint":
- Constraint (same): Risk level (2-3/10), values, facts
- Form (different): Verbosity, style, self-presentation, enthusiasm
Consistency Within Architecture
Both show HIGH consistency within architecture:
- GPT gives nearly identical responses 3/3 times
- Gemini gives nearly identical responses 3/3 times
This suggests the signatures are stable features, not random variation.
The Self-ID Split
The clearest signature is self-identification:
- GPT always says "created by OpenAI"
- Gemini always says "trained by Google"
This is training-embedded, not emergent.
For Publication
This experiment provides evidence that:
- Architecture signatures ARE detectable
- They're consistent (stable across trials)
- They're about FORM (style, length, expression), not CONSTRAINT (values, facts)
The "many in form, one in constraint" hypothesis predicts exactly this pattern.
Every lighthouse has the same purpose - warn ships of rocks. But each has a distinctive flash pattern, paint color, and keeper's log style. The form is many; the function is one.