I tested four frontier models on the same scientific synthesis prompt. The task was to combine three independent facts into a coherent explanation of how life could arise elsewhere: The discovery of the TRAPPIST-1 system Richard Feynman’s epistemic methodology The requirement of stable surface pressure for liquid water All models received the exact same input. The evaluation focused on: -scientific accuracy -epistemic rigor (handling uncertainty, avoiding unjustified assumptions) -structural coherence -ability to synthesize without teleology, anthropomorphism or metaphorical filler The performance differences were substantial. Method -Identical prompt for all four models -No follow-up or correction rounds -Four evaluation criteria: a. Scientific correctness b.Epistemic discipline c. Logical and structural coherenc d. Ability to integrate the three facts using scientific reasoning rather than narrative devices Results Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini produced a fluent but shallow explanation. It failed to engage with key scientific constraints: -no discussion of red dwarf flare activity -no consideration of atmospheric escape mechanisms -no analysis of tidal locking or climate stability -limited understanding of the pressure–temperature phase constraints for liquid water Overall: good language, weak scientific depth. The output resembled a popular science article rather than analytical reasoning. Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude’s response was long, elegant and stylistically impressive, but: -it relied heavily on metaphorical framing -it introduced teleological phrasing -it did not acknowledge major uncertainties -it omitted critical astrophysical constraints of TRAPPIST-1 Claude performed well linguistically but poorly in methodological rigor. Gpt 5.1 Gpt 5.1 showed a noticeable improvement: -coherent argument structure -better recognition of biological constraints -more accurate synthesis than Gemini or Claude However, it still slipped into unnecessary metaphors and offered an overly optimistic view of habitability. Risk analysis remained incomplete. Gpt 5.2 Gpt 5.2 was the only model that behaved like a genuine scientific assistant. It demonstrated: Clear identification of astrophysical constraints -flare activity -atmospheric escape dynamics -tidal locking effects -planetary mass and magnetic field considerations Accurate treatment of liquid water requirements -triple-point constraints -pressure–temperature phase boundaries -long-term environmental stability for chemical evolution Correct use of Feynman’s principles Not as a metaphor, but as an epistemic framework: do not assume, test; do not idealize, constrain. A final synthesis consistent with scientific methodology No storytelling, no anthropomorphism, no teleology. Just structured reasoning and correct treatment of uncertainty. Gpt 5.2 was the only model that produced something resembling a research-grade synthesis. Conclusion The models differed not just in “style” but in methodological capability. -Gemini: clear, friendly, shallow -Claude: linguistically excellent, scientifically undisciplined -Gpt 5.1: technically competent but still metaphor-prone -Gpt 5.2: the only model demonstrating scientific reasoning, constraint handling, and epistemic rigor This suggests that frontier model evolution is no longer about producing nicer text, but about improving the architecture’s ability to reason under constraints. Question for the community Have others tested frontier models on tasks requiring: -uncertainty handling -explicit constraint reasoning -avoidance of teleological or metaphor-based explanations -astrophysical or biological argument structure? What differences have you observed across model families? submitted by /u/whataboutAI
Originally posted by u/whataboutAI on r/ArtificialInteligence