Quiz rooms, trivia nights, and quiz shows challenge human knowledge across a wide range of topics, from canonical facts to everyday culture. In this paper, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can perform competitively in such settings, using quiz-style questions to test them on both common and niche topics. We introduce TriviaRoomQA, a multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate everyday, culturally grounded, and long-tail knowledge across 288 topics. The benchmark contains 3,300 parallel multiple-choice questions in six European languages and additional 5,340 French-only questions for a more fine-grained case study. We evaluate 30 open-weight LLMs from European, Asian, and North American providers, covering models from 7 to 70B parameters. We find that models are strong on knowledge-intensive topics such as history, geography, and mathematics, but substantially weaker on everyday popular-culture topics such as celebrities, music, movies, and news. Moreover, model performance varies across languages even for the same underlying questions, suggesting that access to factual knowledge is not always language-independent. In sum, our dataset and experiments demonstrate an important knowledge gap which is not captured by existing academic-based saturated benchmarks.
In 2011, IBM's Watson was something like a sealed capsule of its era's queryable knowledge. Its DeepQA system defeated the strongest human Jeopardy! champions, but the knowledge that let it do so lived in a curated billion-document corpus running on a cluster of POWER7 servers, frozen at build time and impossible to move or copy. We show that the same kind of artifact, a snapshot of what a culture can answer, is now portable and essentially free. We evaluate a single 9 GB open-weight model (Qwen2.5-14B, 4-bit) against the complete open Jeopardy! clue dataset, 529,939 clues across all 41 broadcast seasons from 1984 to 2025. To our knowledge this is the first time a model has been run over the full corpus. The 41 years mark only how long the questions were collected. What they test is far older and broader: the accumulated body of human general knowledge a culture considers worth knowing, from ancient history and dead languages to science, literature, and geography, with a verified answer for every item. The model answers 67.0% of all clues under a strict forced-response protocol with exact and fuzzy matching, and exceeds 85% on factoid categories. We treat training-data exposure as something both systems share rather than a flaw unique to language models. Watson's case is in fact the more extreme one. Its corpus was assembled to contain Jeopardy answers and it was tuned on past clues, and it could not answer anything outside that curated distribution. The decisive test is whether a model can answer clues that did not exist when it was built. On clues aired after its training cutoff, the local model holds 65% and Claude Opus 4.8 holds 95%, while Watson by construction scores zero. The capability survives the move from a server room to a file you could seal in a time capsule, and unlike Watson it is not frozen to its own moment.
Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.