Handwriting analysis test with GPT-4V…

Using GPT4 to first construct a complex prompt for handwriting analysis, then using GPT-4V to execute the prompt with the handwriting samples. Truly fascinating example of what you can do with this model, and the high degree of accuracy and detail you can produce with a complex use case.

“Initial Assessment:

• Both handwriting samples are laid out side by side.
• Immediate similarities include overall letter structure and style, especially noticeable in words like “GIVE”, “THE”, “MONEY”, “I HAVE A GUN”, and “NO TRICKS”.
• No overt differences are immediately evident, but a closer analysis will be more telling.

Size and Scale:

• The height and width of individual letters in both samples are closely matched.
• Uppercase to lowercase letter size ratio is also comparable.
• Both samples demonstrate consistent patterns in size variation.

Slant and Direction:

• Both handwriting samples predominantly slant to the right.
• The slant appears to be consistent throughout each sample.

Spacing:

• The space between individual letters and between words is fairly consistent between the two samples.
• There is no significant variation in spacing in either sample.

Letter Formation:

• The loops in letters ‘g’, ‘y’, and the cross in ‘t’ are strikingly similar in both samples.
• Unique formations such as the specific shape of the letter ‘r’ and the tail in ‘q’ are also consistent between the samples.

Pressure and Pen Strokes:

• Both samples showcase similar thickness and darkness, suggesting consistent pressure was applied during writing.
• There is no evident lift of pen or signs of hurried writing in the samples provided.

Connecting Strokes:

• The manner in which letters are connected, especially in cursive segments, is congruent between the samples.
• Connections appear smooth and consistent.

Special Characters and Punctuation:

• The formation of numbers, symbols, and punctuation is comparable in both samples.
• The placement of dots on ‘i’s and ‘j’s, as well as the crosses on ‘t’s, show similarity.

Inconsistencies and Errors:

• There are no evident corrections, overwriting, or scribbles in the samples.
• Letter formations seem consistent, with no clear signs of intentional disguise.

Conclusion:

• Based on the detailed observations, it is highly likely that the two handwriting samples are from the same individual.
• Key similarities include: consistent slant direction, matching letter formations, especially in unique characters, and consistent pressure and pen strokes.
• There were no distinguishable differences that would suggest the handwritings are from different individuals.”