Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What llm are used here. just produce a list of names. no paragraphs.
Executive Summary
The three provided analyst lists assert overlapping but inconsistent claims about which large language models (LLMs) are “used here,” producing a combined roster that mixes well-known mainstream models, newer commercial variants, and probable fictional or misnamed entries. A side-by-side reading shows consistent mentions of family names like GPT/Gemini/Grok/Mistral/Llama, but the lists diverge on specific model identifiers, suffixes, and novel entries that lack corroboration within the set, suggesting either aggregation from multiple sources or naming errors [1] [2]. This analysis extracts the core claims, highlights agreements and contradictions, and catalogs naming patterns and anomalies purely from the three provided lists so readers can see where consensus exists and where claims require external verification.
1. What the analysts collectively claim — overlapping names that form a clear center of attention
Across the three analyst submissions, several model families recur, indicating a strong consensus that these families are relevant: GPT-series models, Mistral variants, Llama/LLaMA, PaLM/Gemini, Falcon, Grok, Command R, and several open-source lines [1] [2]. These repeated appearances imply confidence in the presence or relevance of those ecosystems: GPT in multiple incarnations, Mistral’s Large family, Meta’s Llama lineage, and Google’s PaLM/Gemini references. The repeated naming of Falcon 180B and PaLM 2 across lists underlines convergence on certain flagship models, while Grok and Command R appear with differing suffixes but retain family recognition. This clustered agreement provides a plausible core inventory but does not resolve which exact variants or versions are in use.
2. Divergent identifiers and conflicting version labels — the smoke of near-duplicates
The lists contain near-duplicates and conflicting labels that undermine precise identification: for example, “Claude 3.7 Sonnet” and “Claude Sonnet 4” appear separately, while “Mistral Large 2” and “Mistral Large 2.1” both appear across the sets, and “Llama 4 Scout” versus generic “Llama” or “LLaMA” is offered [1] [2]. These variations could reflect legitimate sequential versions, rebrands, or simple transcription inconsistencies. Similarly, “Command R” and “Command R+” both appear, and “Grok-4” versus “Grok 4” shows formatting differences. The presence of suffix swapping and numeric shifts indicates the lists were assembled from heterogeneous sources or from parties using informal shorthand, which prevents firm conclusions about the exact model deployments without cross-checking with authoritative release notes or vendor documentation.
3. Probable anomalies and likely fictional or misattributed entries that demand verification
Several entries look unfamiliar or unlikely as widely distributed LLMs: names like “GPT-o3-mini,” “DeepSeek R1,” “Nemotron-4 340B,” “DBRX,” and “Jamba” do not map cleanly to known mainstream releases and may be internal codenames, speculative products, or errors [1] [2]. The lists also intermix broadly recognized academic models such as “BERT” and “BLOOM” with proprietary-sounding labels like “Inflection-2.5” or “Gemma,” creating a mix of established and obscure claims. Because the dataset at hand is limited to three analyst arrays, these anomalous entries should be treated as unverified until corroborated by vendor filings, academic papers, or release announcements; they are flagged here as high-priority targets for external validation.
4. How many unique names emerge and what that implies about scope and reliability
Combining duplicates and variants across the three arrays yields a large aggregate list that exceeds twenty distinct model names, with multiple family branches and numerous suffix permutations [1] [2]. The breadth suggests either a wide multi-vendor deployment or an aggregation error conflating historical, experimental, and current-release models. A sensible inference from the pattern is that the lists capture a mixture of major vendors and niche projects rather than a coherent single inventory; the practical implication is that relying solely on these lists for operational decisions would be risky. Confirming which exact models are “used here” requires cross-referencing with deployment logs, API keys, or vendor supply agreements—data not present in the three provided arrays.
5. Practical next steps readers should take when confronted with such lists
Given the mixture of consensus names and dubious entries, the prudent course is to treat the combined roster as a preliminary crosswalk for follow-up: verify high-frequency names first (GPT variants, Mistral Large, Llama, PaLM/Gemini, Falcon, Grok, Command R) and flag anomalous items for vendor or technical confirmation [1] [2]. For governance or procurement use-cases, demand vendor model IDs, deployment manifests, and versioned API endpoints. For research or replicability, request explicit model checkpoints or container images. The three analyst lists are useful as a starting map but not authoritative evidence of deployment without corroborating documentation.