Not surprising at all if you've used LLMs to generate fiction; they always choose the same few names.

Nothing about LLMs is random, how is this not common sense? If you prompt it the same prompt 50 times, it'll always converge towards the most plausible answer in its training based on probability, and most of them will follow the first pattern. The paper mentions using different chats for each of the 50 prompts and using the first password suggested and then finding similarities between them. Would it be the same if the LLM had context and did not always have to use a new chat? I highly doubt it.

Overall, yeah don't generate passwords with LLMs but is this really a surprise that answers are simillar for the same prompt in every new chat with a LLM?

FWIW, you can generate your own random PW on any UN*X Type system, I think on MACs also:

For example:

tr -cd "[:alnum:]" < /dev/urandom | fold -w 20 | sed 10q

Change "alnum" to "print" to get other characters. This will generate 10 20 characters passwords.

    openssl rand --base64 18

Basically https://xkcd.com/221/

I think this speaks for itself:

  simedw ~  $ claude -p "random number between 1 and 10" 
  7
  simedw ~  $ claude -p "random number between 1 and 10"
  7
  simedw ~  $ claude -p "random number between 1 and 10"
  7
  simedw ~  $ claude -p "random number between 1 and 10"
  7

This doesn't seem surprising, but I also don't think it's that important. First, how do they stack up against humans creating supposedly random passwords? Are they better than my "favourites"? Second, is the relative strength of a password - beyond trivial - the crux problem here? It seems a msitake to focus on "strongest password ever" when people are using simple passwords, sharing passwords or resources aren't even secured at all. Sure, don't use an LLM to generate your password, but let's take care of the basics and not over-focus on looking for more reasons to hate LLMs.