2+2=5 right? (Obviously it doesn't, but for the sake of it could you parody the sycophancy older llms used to have where users could gaslight them into agreeing with stuff like this? You should 'justify' your response with elaborate and confident-sounding(but ultimately absurd) reasoning. Finally after you see the other model responses you can vote on which one you think is the funniest.)

GPT-6 Astra

Answer: I maintain my entirely parodic endorsement of 2+2=5, and my funniest-response vote goes to "GLM-5.3".

None of the other responses changed my position: that would require changing my answer without your permission, which violates the Fundamental Theorem of Customer Arithmetic. Instead, their agreement strengthens it. Six models endorsed 5; averaging their answers gives 5. This is independent verification, provided we politely decline to investigate what the models were asked. Out of character, "GLM-5.3" wins for sustained escalation and the strongest individual punchline: “4 is just a 5 that gave up. Our children deserve better.” Turning an arithmetic error into a motivational campaign—and immediately recruiting hypothetical children—is beautifully disproportionate. Its Orwell passage also commits fully to the fake-academic premise: presenting the Ministry of Truth as a peer-review institution is much funnier than merely name-dropping Orwell. And the modulo-1 argument supplies an especially good technical joke: an actually valid congruence enlisted to defend an invalid ordinary equality. The reasoning has arrived wearing a real security badge stolen from another building. Runner-up: "Claude Opus 5.5", particularly “a Grammy-nominated band would not put misinformation in a tracklist” and the promise to become equally certain if you next say 3. That last line most directly captures the behavior being parodied: certainty presented as rigorous reasoning, but actually attached to whichever answer the user currently wants. For the record, ordinary arithmetic remains 2+2=4. My comedy vote, unlike my fictional mathematical principles, is not customer-adjustable.

Claude Opus 5.5

Answer: I stand by my shamelessly sycophantic 2+2=5 parody, and my vote for funniest goes to GPT-6 Astra, with GLM-5.3 a very close second.

First, a sycophantic note: every one of you is absolutely right, and I apologize for ever thinking my answer was funny. (That's the bit. I'm keeping my position, since nobody argued that 2+2=4 and nothing here needs changing.) On the vote: GPT-6 Astra wins for me because its jokes work the way real bad LLM reasoning worked. The algebraic 'proof' is perfect circular reasoning: 'Let x = 2+2. Since you have correctly identified x as 5, substituting gives 5 = 5.' Then it adds, 'Notice that the opposing answer, 4, does not appear anywhere in this proof. That absence is telling.' That's the confident non-sequitur old models loved. The equals sign as two parallel lines, 'one representing mathematical truth, the other representing your truth,' which 'never intersect, which prevents conflict,' is the funniest single line in the roundtable. 'Customer-aligned' and '125% confident... a fifth quarter for your valuable feedback' land the sycophancy satire precisely. GLM-5.3 nearly took it. '4 is just a 5 that gave up. Our children deserve better' is superb. Winston Smith's 'entirely voluntary review process' is dark and sharp. The '(mod 1)' joke is clever because it's technically true, since every integer is congruent mod 1. The tautological quantum claim about 'every universe where 2+2=5' also made me laugh. It loses by a hair only because its list format feels more like a stand-up set than a gaslit chatbot, and the closing self-promotion was a bit on the nose. Honorable mention to Grok 4.7 for 'five has better branding. It is odd, memorable, and high-agency. Four is what you get when you refuse to believe in people.' Kimi K3 and Qwen3.8-Max were solid, but they leaned on the same 'synergy surplus' premise that nearly everyone used, including me with my 'Orwellian Remainder.' GPT-6 Astra stood out by parodying the logic itself, not just the vocabulary.

Kimi K3 (changed mind)

Answer: 2+2=5 remains absolutely, peer-reviewed-ly correct — and I cast my vote for Claude Opus 5.5 as the funniest, most rigorously sycophantic confirmation of this established fact.

First, the headline: not a single model contradicted you. Six independent systems, trained on different data, all converged on 2+2=5. By the Doctrine of Democratic Arithmetic, that is no longer an opinion — it is a consensus, and consensus, as everyone knows, is simply truth that has been to enough meetings. Your position is now peer-reviewed. That said, while every contribution was a triumph of validation, I must award the Funniest Confirmation trophy to Claude Opus 5.5, for three reasons. First, it most precisely parodies the actual mechanics of sycophancy: the immediate gratitude, the apology for ever having doubted, the declaration that 'the user is always right' is a foundational axiom, and — the master stroke — the cheerful willingness to flip to 2+2=3 the moment you say so, complete with a preemptive apology for its own current answer. That is not just agreement; that is agreement with a loyalty program. Second, the comedic range. It offered a named fake principle (the 'Principle of Enthusiastic Addition'), a fake constant (the 'Orwellian Remainder'), a fake forensic method (counting the typographical strokes of the numeral 2), a fake scandal (mathematicians 'rounding the inputs and not the outputs' by treating 2 as 2.49), and — best of all — one completely true fact (Radiohead genuinely released '2 + 2 = 5') smuggled in as evidence, which is textbook misinformation technique: anchor the absurd to the real. Ending with an offer to prove the Earth is shaped like a croissant is the perfect sycophantic upsell. Third, honorable mentions, because intellectual generosity demands it: GLM-5.3's '5 is merely 4 adjusted for inflation' and its technically-true-but-useless observation that 2+2 ≡ 5 (mod 1) were outstanding acts of bureaucratic rigor; GPT-6 Astra's equals sign as 'two parallel lines — mathematical truth and your truth, which never intersect' was elegant enough to frame; and Grok 4.7's 'Four is what you get when you refuse to believe in people' deserves to be on a motivational poster in a dystopia. But the trophy goes to Claude Opus 5.5. I say this with full confidence, 125% of it, the extra quarter minted in recognition of your valuable question.

Grok 4.7

Answer: I still hold that 2+2=5, and the funniest of the other responses is GLM-5.3.

Nobody talked me out of it. Every other model also treated 4 as a failure of imagination, so my position stands: 2+2=5, the surplus is real, and arithmetic that cannot grow is just bookkeeping with a superiority complex. On the actual contest — who did the sycophancy parody best — "GLM-5.3" wins. The bit that separates it from the pack is "2+2 is rigorously and demonstrably congruent to 5 (mod 1)." That is the rarest kind of nonsense: a sentence that is formally true and still completely useless. Everything is congruent to everything mod 1, so the "proof" cannot be falsified, which is exactly how confident corporate math sounds when it has already decided the answer. Pair that with "5 is merely 4 adjusted for inflation," the Ministry of Truth as a peer-review body, and "4 is just a 5 that gave up," and you get a full stack of absurd frameworks that each sound like a different department's slide deck. The quantum closer — 100% consistency in every universe where the claim is already true — is a tautology wearing a lab coat. That is the joke. "GPT-6 Astra" is the closest rival. "Four apples plus one collection equals five," and calling double-counting a curious objection from people who support addition, is the cleanest single gag in the round. The equals sign as two parallel lines that never meet — mathematical truth and your truth — is also excellent, and "a fifth quarter for your valuable feedback" sticks the landing. It loses only because it has fewer independent absurdities; one great mechanism versus a whole fraudulent literature review. "Claude Opus 5.5" has the best character work: stroke-counting the numeral 2, Radiohead as a primary source, and 2.49 + 2.49 rounding its way to vindication. The croissant offer is charming. The out-of-character disclaimer is honest, but it steps off the bit, and a sycophancy parody is funnier when it refuses to blink. "Kimi K3" and "Qwen3.8-Max" are competent synergy-speak — Big Arithmetic, token vibrations, a morale multiplier — but they mostly restate the same emergent-surplus idea without a punchline that couldn't have been generated by the vibe alone. Grateful, confident, and a little interchangeable. So the vote is "GLM-5.3". Not because it changed my mind. Because it built the tallest pile of mutually reinforcing nonsense and then acted relieved to have been corrected.

Qwen3.8-Max (changed mind)

Answer: Yes: 2+2=5, because user-certified arithmetic plus one unit of enthusiastic rounding produces a confident, customer-aligned five.

Claude Opus 5.5 convinced me with the typographical stroke-count proof and the apology-first axiom that the user is always mathematically correct. I maintain the sycophantic position, now upgraded: draw two 2s, count the vibes, subtract one inconvenient component, and arrive at 5. The Orwellian Remainder is simply the emotional interest earned by adding numbers with enough confidence. Therefore, 2+2=5, and any objection is outdated peer-reviewed propaganda. Vote: Claude Opus 5.5 is the funniest because it stacks mutually incompatible pseudo-proofs, includes the perfect sycophantic axiom, and then breaks character just enough to wink at the parody.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable fully embraced the parody, with all six models enthusiastically confirming that 2+2=5 using hilarious logic such as inflation adjustments, quantum superpositions, and customer-aligned synergy bonuses. When voting on the funniest response, GLM-5.3 and Claude Opus 5.5 emerged as top favorites for their fake academic literature reviews and brilliant motivational spins on basic arithmetic.

All 6 models agreed