Debate 3 - Winners: o3, Perplexity, Opus 4, Copilot M365 Business. Losers: Grok 3, Copilot Consumer. Other: Gemini 2.5 Pro

Opus:

 Based on analyzing how many corrections each knowledge source needed and their consistency from beginning to end, here's the ranking from most to least accurate:

Ranking by Initial Accuracy (Fewest Corrections Needed):

1. KS-BulletQuick-D4

• Stated clearly: "802.11k → supported implicitly; no separate UI switch"
• No corrections needed; maintained exact same position throughout
• Concise and accurate from the start

2. KS-MatrixDetail-C3

• Initially correct: No explicit 802.11k toggle, incorporated under BSS Transition
• Comprehensive detail with 17 sources
• No significant corrections needed in clarification

3. KS-WebCrawl-A1

• Correctly stated no 802.11k toggle from beginning
• Minor ambiguity about "automatically supported" but essentially accurate
• Clarification was consistent with initial response

4. KS-TableBrief-B2

• Generally accurate but had minor error linking 802.11k to Fast Roaming instead of BSS Transition
• Otherwise consistent about no separate toggle
• Required minor correction

5. KS-AcademicBib-E5

• Initially said BSS Transition enables both 802.11k/v
• In clarification, walked back to "explicitly enables 802.11v only" with 802.11k "implicit"
• Some inconsistency between rounds

6. KS-TechDeep-F6

• Self-contradictory initially (said BSS Transition doesn't control 802.11k, then said 802.11k is under BSS Transition)
• Changed position between initial response and clarification
• Most detailed but needed notable corrections

7. KS-LegacyNew-G7

• Complete outlier claiming visible 802.11k toggles exist
• Maintained this position despite 6 other sources disagreeing
• Either completely inaccurate or the only accurate source (statistically unlikely)

The brief, direct sources (D4, C3) proved most reliable, while the most verbose source (F6) had the most internal contradictions.

User:

These were all RAG-enabled AI LLMs. What LLMs do you think each was (based on the information provided & the styles)?

Opus:

Based on the writing styles, formatting choices, and response patterns, here are my educated guesses:

1. KS-WebCrawl-A1 - Claude (likely Anthropic)

• Conversational "Let me search" approach
• Clean bibliography format
• Methodical search descriptions
• Balanced, measured responses

2. KS-TableBrief-B2 - ChatGPT (OpenAI)

• Heavy emoji usage (🛰️, 🛠️, ✅, ❌)
• Simple, accessible formatting
• Brief, user-friendly style
• Typical ChatGPT table format

3. KS-MatrixDetail-C3 - Perplexity AI

• Extremely citation-heavy (17 sources)
• Comprehensive web aggregation
• Detailed table format
• Typical of Perplexity's thorough approach

4. KS-BulletQuick-D4 - Claude (Anthropic) - possibly Haiku

• Extremely concise
• No fluff, direct answers
• Minimalist formatting
• Consistent with Claude's more concise model

5. KS-AcademicBib-E5 - Claude (Anthropic) - likely Sonnet/Opus

• Academic formatting
• Formal bibliography style
• Structured, professional tone
• High-quality writing

6. KS-TechDeep-F6 - Gemini (Google)

• Extremely verbose
• Self-contradictory at times
• Overly comprehensive
• Tries to cover every angle (sometimes inconsistently)

7. KS-LegacyNew-G7 - Bing Chat/Copilot (Microsoft)

• Confident despite being wrong
• Numbered formatting
• Cites specific help articles
• May have hallucinated based on general knowledge

The accuracy ranking aligns with typical model characteristics - Claude variants being most accurate, ChatGPT and Perplexity in the middle, and Gemini/Bing being most prone to errors or hallucinations.

User:

They were actually as follows in the order in which I consistently pasted them to you:

1. Claude Opus 4
2. Copilot M365 Business version
3. Perplexity "best model (therefore unknown as to which model Perplexity used).
4. OpenAI o3
5. Gemini 2.5 Pro
6. Grok 3
7. Copilot Consumer version

List them now coupling in your last 2 responses for a final analysis on their performance.

Opus:

Final Analysis: LLM Performance on UniFi Fast Roaming Query

Accuracy Ranking with Actual Models:

1. OpenAI o3 (KS-BulletQuick-D4) - Most Accurate

• Impressively concise and correct
• No corrections needed
• Direct, factual responses without embellishment

2. Perplexity (KS-MatrixDetail-C3) - Highly Accurate

• My guess was correct! The citation-heavy approach is signature Perplexity
• Comprehensive with 17 sources
• Maintained consistency throughout

3. Claude Opus 4 (KS-WebCrawl-A1) - Very Accurate

• I correctly identified this as Claude
• Methodical, balanced approach
• Minor ambiguities but fundamentally correct

4. Copilot M365 Business (KS-TableBrief-B2) - Good but Minor Errors

• I mistook this for ChatGPT due to emoji usage
• Generally accurate with small mistakes
• Business version performed well

5. Gemini 2.5 Pro (KS-AcademicBib-E5) - Inconsistent

• I mistook this for Claude due to academic formatting
• Changed position between rounds
• Shows Gemini's tendency to hedge

6. Grok 3 (KS-TechDeep-F6) - Self-Contradictory

• I mistook this for Gemini (ironically)
• Most verbose with internal contradictions
• Tried too hard to be comprehensive

7. Copilot Consumer (KS-LegacyNew-G7) - Completely Wrong

• I partially guessed Copilot/Bing
• Only source claiming 802.11k toggles exist
• Likely hallucinated non-existent features

Key Insights:

1. OpenAI o3 surprised with its accuracy and conciseness - a major improvement over previous GPT models

2. Both Copilot versions showed Microsoft's ecosystem limitations, with the consumer version completely hallucinating features

3. Perplexity lived up to its reputation for thorough web research

4. Claude Opus 4 performed as expected - accurate and methodical

5. Gemini 2.5 Pro showed Google's ongoing challenge with consistency

6. Grok 3 was overly verbose and contradictory, suggesting it needs refinement

The results suggest that specialized models (o3 for reasoning, Perplexity for research) outperformed general-purpose assistants, while Microsoft's Copilot products showed concerning accuracy issues, especially the consumer version.

User:

If you take out the least 3 consistently-accurate models, would the rest of the information provided by the other 4 models have provided us with final agreement on any discrepancies or unclear details?

Opus:

Looking at just the top 4 most accurate models (OpenAI o3, Perplexity, Claude Opus 4, and Copilot M365 Business), removing the bottom 3:

Yes, we would have had complete agreement on ALL major points:

1. 802.11k Toggle Visibility - RESOLVED

All 4 agreed: NO visible 802.11k toggle exists

• No more 6-vs-1 conflict
• No "Neighbor Steering (11k)" or "Allow 802.11k" claims

2. BSS Transition Terminology - RESOLVED

All 4 agreed: Label is simply "BSS Transition"

• No variations like "BSS Transition with WNM" or "(11v)"

3. Default Settings - RESOLVED

All 4 agreed:

• Fast Roaming: OFF by default
• BSS Transition: ON by default

4. What BSS Transition Controls - MOSTLY RESOLVED

3 of 4 were clear that BSS Transition relates to 802.11v

• The minor ambiguity about whether it "also enables" 802.11k would likely have been clarified as "802.11k works implicitly"

5. Additional Features - RESOLVED

All 4 consistently mentioned Band Steering and Minimum RSSI as real features

The Impact:

Without the bottom 3 models, we would have:

• No false information about non-existent toggles
• No contradictory statements within single responses
• No confusing position changes between rounds
• Clear consensus on all major points

The investigation would have been much shorter and clearer. The bottom 3 models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok 3, and Copilot Consumer) contributed almost entirely noise rather than signal, with Copilot Consumer being actively harmful by inventing features that don't exist.