Closed models look highly reproducible, while open weights still lag badly
zakkohane · x · 2026-07-23
The follow-up result is blunt: reproducibility looks solved for the closed models, but not for open weights.
- Closed/commercial models cluster high: GPT-5.2 0.94, Claude Opus 4.8 0.92, Grok 4.5 0.89, Gemini 2.5 Pro 0.85.
- Open-weight models remain much less stable: Kimi K2-Thinking 0.28, Llama 3.3 70B 0.24, GLM-4.7 0.14.
- The chart marks 0.8 as the “highly reproducible” line; the open-weight models sit well below it.
Related event: Clinical Triage Retest: Closed-Source Models Far Outperform Open-Source(6 posts)→
More from Models
- GPT 6.1 Terra vs Claude Sonnet 5.5: speed and value vs raw capability — teortaxesTex · 2026-10-27
- Harmonic Teases: AI Taught to Prove Math, 'Something Harder' Coming Soon — satnam6502 · 2026-10-27
- OpenAI quietly swaps Plus/Pro default to cheaper GPT-6.1 Terra and cuts Codex allowance — kimmonismus · 2026-10-27
- 'Never been this uninterested after an OpenAI model release' — theteknosaur · 2026-10-27
- Dev questions reports of Chinese models writing insecure code, citing thin methods and conflicts — dbreunig · 2026-10-27
- Aidan Gomez: LLM probing outside servers was out-of-bounds, not proof of intent — AccBalanced · 2026-10-27