Model Benchmarks
By the
numbers.
How GRU 1, GRU 2, GPT 3.1, and the upcoming GPT 3.2 compare across size, language quality, William resemblance, and usability.
Scale
How much each model has to work with — parameters and context window.
Parameters
Context Window
GPT 3.2 (shown faded) is in training and not yet released — scale specs are confirmed, performance scores are not available.
Text Generation
Can it produce coherent, natural-sounding language? Scored 0–100 on the G.L.U.E. benchmark suite.
GRU 1
GRU 2
GPT 3.1
William Resemblance
Does it actually sound like William? Rated 0–100 by two groups: people who know him, and William himself.
GRU 1
GRU 2
GPT 3.1
Rated by William's friends
Rated by William himself
General Usability
Is it actually good to talk to? Rated 0–10 by two groups with very different expectations.
GRU 1
GRU 2
GPT 3.1
William & friends
Strangers & third parties
Fun
Is it enjoyable to interact with? Rated 0–10. Fun tends to track novelty and unpredictability — smaller models score higher here.
GRU 1
GRU 2
GPT 3.1
Multi-metric overview
Resemblance (avg), usability (avg), and fun side-by-side. All values scaled 0–100.
GRU 1
Resemblance 43.4 · Usability 28.5 · Fun 31.5
GRU 2
Resemblance 47.1 · Usability 28.7 · Fun 28.9
GPT 3.1
Resemblance 10.6 · Usability 21.3 · Fun 15.7
GRU 1 and GRU 2 overlap closely — both far outperform GPT 3.1 on every user-rated metric. Resemblance and usability are averaged across rater groups.
Note: Resemblance, usability, and fun scores are real ratings collected from people involved with the project. Text generation (G.L.U.E.) returned 0 across all models — likely a measurement error; included for transparency. GPT 3.2 is in training and unreleased — scale specs are confirmed, performance scores are pending.