All four leading LLMs talk more than they listen to personality-verified synthetic help-seekers

LLM assistant personalities play a critical role in user experience and perceived response quality. We present a large-scale experiment of frontier LLM personalities using external ELO-based traits scoring across 144 traits. We find that all models tested converge on a form of trait expression that is systematic, methodical, and analytical and suppress traits such as remorseful and sycophantic. Moreover, models tend to diverge more in their expression of middle-of-distribution traits such as poetic or playful, but even these so-called creative models tend to have more neutral identities. These similarities suggest an implicit emergence of a standard of optimal assistant behavior. In a landscape of varied training methods, character training, therefore, stands out for its uniformity, offering insight into a tacit consensus between model developers.

Do large language models' (LLMs') answers to self-report questionnaires predict how they behave? Prior work finds they do not, but it uses human personality inventories, so the gap could reflect borrowed human constructs rather than LLM self-report itself. We test this with a self-report instrument built from LLM-specific behaviors (e.g., over-refusal, unsolicited disclaimers) whose structure is derived bottom-up. Administering 300 items 30 times to 25 LLMs from 17 developers yields five replicable, reliable factors (Tucker $φ\geq .957$, $α\geq .930$). We compare these self-reports with 2,500 open-ended behavioral samples rated by 151 humans and an LLM-judge ensemble. Humans and judges agree about model behavior ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report barely tracks human ratings ($\bar{r} = .09$, 95% CI $[-.07, .18]$) or rater-free text measures, and correcting for criterion unreliability leaves four of five factors near zero. Verbosity is the partial exception ($r = .40$, 71% of its reliability ceiling). On Responsiveness, self-report tracks LLM judges more than humans ($r = .53$ vs. $.18$; Steiger $p = .04$), and controlling for length and formatting does not remove this: agreement between LLM judges and LLM self-report is weak evidence that either tracks human judgment.

Can large language models reliably express a human-like personality, or are they merely mimicking surface cues without a stable underlying profile? To investigate this, we induce personality in LLMs by fine-tuning them on the long-form essays, where each essay is associated with a target Big Five personality profile. We then evaluate the stability and fidelity of the induced personality using the IPIP-NEO questionnaire. Specifically, we ask: (i) does post-training (SFT, DPO, ORPO) stabilize questionnaire scores under prompt rephrasings, and (ii) can it induce target Big Five profiles from unguided essays? Our results demonstrate that fine-tuning consistently reduces variance in questionnaire responses across five models, directly mitigating the evaluation fragility reported in pre-trained models. However, this newfound stability reveals a more fundamental limitation: accuracy on the full five-dimensional profile remains near chance, even when single-trait scores improve. This indicates that unguided essays lack the cues needed for faithful personality expression. We therefore argue for scenario-grounded datasets or interactive elicitation that accumulates test-aligned evidence over time.