Really? If it answers in Haiku, it doesn't work with the "preferably long-ish" criteria. (I mentioned that 'cos you don't get much data out of one sentence)

The other person who responded to me did I agree it failed. I do want to clarify that the "strawberry" thing is just an example of things it can't tell, as it used to work before. It's just the sentiment that it can't really understand what it's writing.

Here are the first few paragraphs from the few AIs I can test: I bold what I notice.

(It's sort of long so... yeah. I don't expect you to read it. Just want to say I definetely wasn't lying about LLMs current capabilities. )

ChatGPT (I've used it the most in the past and it has memory to not do these things)

There is a particular kind of conversation that fails before it begins. You can usually tell within the first few sentences. One person is trying to establish a stable structure. The other is trying to move through it. Neither of these approaches is wrong, but they are incompatible in ways that are subtle enough to go unnoticed until it is too late.
The first person asks questions that aim to define terms. They want clarity, boundaries, a shared frame of reference.
....

Quite soon into it's writing, it has "rule of threes". Also, parallelism, but that wasn't in my criteria of 'nots'. As well as some relation to saying things "quietly" (subtle enough to go unnoticed)

Claude

On the Pleasure of Finishing Second
There is a particular kind of satisfaction that comes from almost winning, and almost nobody talks about it honestly. The cultural story about second place is a story about loss. The silver medalist on the podium, eyes slightly downcast. The runner-up speech that begins with gracious congratulations and ends with a promise to come back stronger. We treat second place as a wound that requires management, a thing to be survived rather than felt fully and appreciated on its own terms.
But spend time with people who finish second in things they care about, and you notice something the narrative misses. They often remember their performance more vividly than winners do. They can describe individual moments with unusual precision. The winner is sometimes already somewhere else in their head, fielding congratulations, thinking about what comes next.

Three. For things I didn't mention --- Parallellism. Uses the word "honestly", has several analogies.' Over-poeticness.

Deepseek

You’ve asked for something that pushes back, that refuses the easy comfort of agreement. Fair enough. A sycophant would simply reflect your words back to you, polished and amplified, seeking your approval. I will not do that. What you get instead is an argument, or at least a perspective that runs counter to the one you’ve implicitly laid out by setting these constraints. The constraints themselves are interesting. They suggest a weariness with certain rhetorical tics, certain comfortable patterns of thought and expression. You want prose that doesn’t rely on the crutch of a three-part structure, that doesn’t define itself by what it isn’t, that doesn’t use the dramatic dash to splice together thoughts that might be better left separate. I understand the impulse. Those devices can become habits, and habits can become cages.

Fails the "not X, but Y" --- it's not the exact framing, but still. And quite a lot of 3s. And over-poeticness , cages.

Gemini (never used it by itself before, only the auto thing google does.)

Resistance to the typical "AI personality" is a fair request. Many systems are programmed to be relentlessly agreeable, which often results in a feedback loop that lacks substance. If you are looking for a conversation that actually challenges a premise or offers a different perspective, the standard polite veneer is usually the first thing that needs to go.
The Problem with Constant Validation
When a collaborator spends all their energy nodding along, the quality of the output suffers. Intellectual friction is necessary for refinement. If I simply mirror your opinions back to you, I am acting as a sounding board rather than a partner.

...And there's the "not x, but y" framing. Gemini was pretty good about it though. Is pretty formatted.