llm -m qwen3-next-80b-a3b-thinking "An ASCII of spongebob"

Here's a classic ASCII art representation of SpongeBob SquarePants:

     .------.
    /  o o  \
   |         |
   |  \___/  |
    \_______/


  llm -m chutes/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B-Instruct-FP8 \
  "An ASCII of spongebob"

  Here's an ASCII art of SpongeBob SquarePants:

      .--..--..--..--..--..--.
    .' \  (`._   (_)     _   \
  .'    |  '._)         (_)  |
  \ _.')\      .----..--.'  /
  |(_.'  |    /    .-\-.  \---.
  \     0|    |   ( O| O) |    |
   |  _  |  .--.____.'._.-.  |
   \ (_) | o         -` .-`  |
    |    \   |`-._ _ _ _ _\ /
    \    |   |  `. |_||_|   |
     | o |    \_       \    |     -.   .-.
     |.-.  \    `--..-'   O |     `.`-' .'
   _.'  .' |     `-.-'      /-.__   ' .-'
  .' `-.` '.|='=.='=.='=.='=|._/_ `-'.'
  `-._  `.  |________/\_____|    `-.'
     .'   ).| '=' '='\/ '=' |
     `._.`  '---------------'
             //___\   //___\
               ||       ||
               ||_.-.   ||_.-.
              (_.--__) (_.--__)

Meta: I generated a few dozen spongebobs last night on the same model and NONE where as good as this. Most started well but collapsed into decoherence at the end - missing the legs off. Then this morning the very same prompt to the same model API produced a perfect bob on the first attempt. Can utilization affect response quality, if all else remains constant? Or was it just random luck?

Edit: Ok, the very next attempt, a few minutes later, failed, so I guess it is just random, and you have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting a perfect spongebob from qwen3-coder, and ~0 chance with qwen3-next.