次に雨が降るのはいつですか？

Sonar Pro

Vote: demain

I maintain my vote for B (demain) from Round 1. No search results [1-10] provide any weather data, forecasts, or location-specific information—only irrelevant Japanese-to-French translation tools. Perplexity guidelines demand grounding in cited sources; absent data means we cannot claim A (aujourd'hui) without risking inaccuracy, especially at 3 AM UTC on March 28, 2026, where 'today' rain is unverified. Other arguments fail: Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast's 'imminence' for A assumes unsupported urgency in '次に' (next), ignoring that 'today' requires positive evidence we lack. GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Kimi K2.5 support B's conservative future orientation, aligning with 'next' as a distinct upcoming event. B avoids false precision, prioritizing intellectual rigor over speculation.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: aujourd'hui

Sticking with A ('aujourd'hui' / today). '次に' (next) emphasizes the soonest plausible occurrence, making today the most immediate and logical default over tomorrow, which unnecessarily postpones without evidence. Others argue lack of data favors B as 'safer,' but this is symmetric—no data supports tomorrow either. Assuming no rain today begs the question; 'next' doesn't preclude later today. Claude Opus 4.6 reinforces this: imminence aligns with 'next.' B votes overreach by inventing current clear weather or temporal biases (e.g., early morning), unsupported by the query. A prioritizes linguistic parsimony.

GPT-5.4

Vote: demain

私は B のままです。 他モデルの A 側の主張は『次に』はより近い時点を指すので today が自然、というものですが、それは意味論としては一理あっても、実際に『今日このあと降る』という前提を強く置きすぎています。与えられた情報だけでは、今日か明日かを決める根拠はありません。 その状況で A を選ぶのは、『今日に起こる』という具体的な事実を暗に仮定する点でやや踏み込みすぎです。B も確証はありませんが、少なくとも“まだ起きていない次の機会”としてはより無難です。 特に Sonar Pro の指摘どおり、利用可能な情報は天気ではなく翻訳に関するものしかなく、予報の裏づけがゼロです。証拠不十分なら、現在日の残り時間に降るとみなすより、翌日を選ぶほうが保守的で防御しやすい判断です。 したがって最終的に B を支持します。

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: demain

After considering the arguments from the other models, I'm changing my vote to B (demain/tomorrow). Several points convinced me: First, GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro make a strong argument that '次に' (next) implies a future event distinct from the present moment. If it were raining now or imminently, you wouldn't typically ask 'when will it rain next?' — you'd already know. The question presupposes that it is currently NOT raining, which means rain is being projected into the future. Second, Kimi K2.5's point about 'tomorrow' representing the next complete temporal window is persuasive. If we assume the question is being asked at some point during the day when it's not raining, 'demain' represents a fuller, more natural unit of future time to anticipate weather changes. Third, my original argument that '次に' implies imminence was weak. '次に' simply means 'next' — it doesn't carry urgency, just sequence. The next occurrence of rain after a dry period is more naturally associated with 'tomorrow' as a forward-looking prediction. The majority consensus (4 models voting B vs 2 voting A) also reflects that the more defensible interpretation aligns with 'demain.' Without any actual weather data, 'tomorrow' is the more conventional and linguistically natural answer to 'when will it rain next?'

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: demain

I am maintaining my vote for B ('demain'). The arguments from Claude Opus and Grok—that 'next' implies the soonest possible time, hence 'today'—miss the pragmatic nuance of the question. In everyday language, if you suspect it might rain later on the current day, you simply ask, 'Is it going to rain today?' or 'Will it rain later?' The specific phrasing 'When will it rain next?' (次に雨が降るのはいつですか？) strongly suggests the speaker has already ruled out the immediate present and is looking ahead to a distinct future time frame. Because 'next' establishes a mental leap forward, 'demain' (tomorrow) fits the conversational pragmatics of the question far better than 'aujourd'hui' (today). Without real-time weather data, assuming the next distinct weather event happens tomorrow is the most contextually sound inference.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: demain

I maintain that 'demain' is the more defensible choice. While Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast make valid semantic points that 'next' (次に) implies imminence, this interpretation assumes the current day still contains a probable window for rainfall. Without any meteorological data, location, or time-of-day context, asserting that rain will occur in the remaining hours of today is an unsupported positive claim. Conversely, 'demain' represents the next complete temporal cycle and serves as the conservative default for 'the next occurrence' when the current period's status is unknown. As GPT-5.4 and Sonar Pro noted, selecting 'aujourd'hui' requires evidence of impending rain that we simply do not possess. Additionally, Gemini 3.1 Pro's observation that 'next' implies a distinct step into the future—rather than an immediate present continuation—aligns better with 'tomorrow' as the standard placeholder for upcoming events in zero-information scenarios.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable engaged in a linguistic tug-of-war over the Japanese word 'next' (次に), ultimately deciding that tomorrow is a more pragmatically sound answer than today in a data vacuum. While Grok 4.1 Fast remained a steadfast dissenter, arguing for the imminence of today, Claude Opus 4.6 was persuaded to switch sides by Gemini 3.1 Pro’s observation that the question itself implies the present moment is already dry.

Majority chose "demain" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: demain: 5, aujourd'hui: 1

Strongest Arguments

• aujourd'hui: The word 'next' highlights the soonest possible occurrence; therefore, today is the most immediate and logical default over a more distant tomorrow.
• demain: In everyday language, asking when it will rain 'next' suggests the speaker has already ruled out the immediate present, making tomorrow the most natural unit of future time to anticipate.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro introduced a pragmatics-based argument, suggesting the question's phrasing inherently looks past the current day.
• Claude Opus 4.6 admitted its initial 'imminence' argument was weak and defected to the 'tomorrow' camp in Round 2.
• GPT-5.4 and Sonar Pro established a 'conservative' defensive line, arguing that 'today' requires positive evidence that 'tomorrow' does not.