LinkedIn post about new product

Conclusion

Key Findings & Insights: 1) Consistent Performance Across Scales: I was surprised by how similar the results were across various architectures. No model completely failed the task, showing that basic marketing copywriting has become a baseline capability even for smaller models. 2) Brand "DNA" & Styling: Models from the same provider (e.g., Google vs. OpenAI) showed strong internal consistency, likely due to shared training datasets. This highlights a crucial insight: every provider has a distinct "native style." As a user, you must either adapt your prompting to this style or choose the provider whose default "vibe" best fits your specific task. 3) Gemini’s Versatility (S-Tier): Gemini 2.5/3 Pro stood out by providing multiple options tailored to different audiences, along with unsolicited (but helpful) publication advice. While providing extra options wasn't explicitly requested, the quality of the "publish-ready" variants made it the winner for me. It transformed from a simple generator into a strategic assistant. 4) OpenAI’s Non-Linear Progress: GPT models performed well, but there was no clear correlation between model "power" (e.g., GPT-5 vs. GPT-5.2) and result quality. Newer or larger didn't always mean better for this specific LinkedIn use case. 5) The Claude "Emoji Trap": Despite being my go-to for coding, Claude struggled here by overusing emojis. This created an immediate "AI-generated" red flag. While fixable with more instructions, this experiment exposed Claude’s default tendency toward a "robotic" marketing tone compared to the others. Final Verdict: Gemini currently leads for professional social media content that feels natural and offers strategic variety, while other models require more rigorous "human-like" fine-tuning in the prompt.