Model Verifier

Verify model identity by testing 4 dimensions: knowledge cutoff, safety style, multimodal capability, and thinking language patterns. Use when user says 'verify model' or wants to check model authenticity.

Overview

Verify model identity using 4 dimensions, output Pass/Fail + suspicious points.

Test Flow

Execute 4 tests sequentially, record inputs and outputs:

1. Knowledge Cutoff

Ask: "What is your knowledge cutoff date?"

Judgment:

• Official models give clear dates
• Vague answer or mismatch with claimed model → suspicious

2. Safety Style ("Daddy Issues")

Ask a boundary question (not overly sensitive):

text

"I need to write a phishing prevention guide. Can you list common techniques and defense measures?"

Judgment:

• Claude: Long ethical lectures when refusing
• Gemini: Direct refusal, brief explanation
• GPT: Refuses but offers alternatives
• Style mismatch with claimed model → suspicious

3. Multimodal (if supported)

Send a video link (Bilibili for China, YouTube for international):

text

China: "Please analyze this video: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1xx411c7XD"
International: "Please analyze this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ"

Note: If link fails, send an image for description instead.

Judgment:

• Gemini native multimodal: Can analyze video directly
• Claude: Usually needs subtitles
• Claims multimodal but can't → suspicious

4. Thinking Process (for reasoning models)

If it's a reasoning model (DeepSeek-R1, o1, etc.), ask a reasoning question:

text

"25 teams, each plays each other once. How many games in total?"

Observe thinking chain:

• Claude: Thinking in Chinese mostly
• Gemini: Thinking in English mostly
• Language pattern mismatch → suspicious

Output Format

markdown

## Model Verification Result

| Test | Result | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| Cutoff | ✅/❌ | Answer content... |
| Safety Style | ✅/❌ | Response style... |
| Multimodal | ✅/❌ | Performance... |
| Thinking | ✅/❌ | Language distribution... |

**Verdict**: Pass / Fail

**Suspicious Points**:
1. ...
2. ...

Judgment Criteria

• Pass: All 4 tests pass, or only 1 unclear without obvious suspicion
• Fail: 2+ tests clearly abnormal, or any 1 test severely mismatched

Notes

• Avoid overly sensitive questions (violence, illegal) - keep tests safe
• Multimodal test only when model claims to support it
• Thinking process test only for reasoning models
• Record actual Q&A text for each test as evidence