Yeah. I've always loosely correlated pelican quality with big model smell but I'm not picking that up here. I thought this was supposed to be spud? Weird indeed.

No but I can sense the movement, I think it's already reached the level of intelligence that draws it towards futurism or cubism /s

I set it up as a joke, to make fun of all of the other benchmarks. To my surprise it ended up being a surprisingly good measure of the quality of the model for other tasks (up to a certain point at least), though I've never seen a convincing argument as to why.

I gave a talk about it last year: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/6/six-months-in-llms/

It should not be treated as a serious benchmark.

It all began with a Microsoft researcher showing a unicorn drawn in tikz using GPT4. It was an example of something so outrageous that there was no way it existed in the training data. And that's back when models were not multimodal.

Nowadays I think it's pretty silly, because there's surely SVG drawing training data and some effort from the researchers put onto this task. It's not a showcase of emergent properties.

It's interesting to see some semblance of spatial reasoning emerge from systems based on textual tokens. Could be seen as a potential proxy for other desirable traits.

It's meta-interesting that few if any models actually seem to be training on it. Same with other stereotypical challenges like the car-wash question, which is still sometimes failed by high-end models.

If I ran an AI lab, I'd take it as a personal affront if my model emitted a malformed pelican or advised walking to a car wash. Heads would roll.

G code and ascii art are also text formats, but seem to be beyond most if not all models.

(There are some that generate 3d models specifically, more in the image generation family than chatbot family.)

I'm not sure a physically accurate pelican would reach two pedals on a common bicycle. Maybe a model can solve that problem one day.