It seems like what's being tested here is maybe just the programmed detail level of the various models' outputs. Claude has a comically detailed output in the

It seems like what's being tested here is maybe just the programmed detail level of the various models' outputs. Claude has a comically detailed output in the 10th "generation" (page 11), where Gemini's corresponding output is more abstract and vague with no numbers. When you combine this with a genetic algorithm that only takes the best "strategies" and semi-randomly tweaks them, it seems unsurprising to get the results shown where a more detailed output converges to a more successful function than an ambiguous one, which meanders. What I don't really know is whether this shows any kind of internal characteristic of the model that indicates a more cooperative "attitude" in outputs, or even that one model is somehow "better" than the others.