3/26から今日までにニュース。IR、noteなどメディアで取り上げられたもので、既存事業や領域のモデルにAIは使ってるかもしれないが（当然ど新規の領域創造のモデルでも）、特にAI明記はされてなく（AI明記されててはだめ、ではない）、それでいて、全くの新しいアプローチのモデルや既存のモデルの進化が大きいサービス・事業を洗い出して下さい 以下の項目でお願いします 評価コメント モデル サービスURL 注目の理由 何がすごいのか？ ニュース概要 記事URL1 記事URL2 記事URL3 TAM 成長市場 タイミング デジタル活用

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

I maintain my vote of B. The user's query is a detailed research and data extraction task requiring real-time news scanning from 3/26 onward, specific service examples, multiple article URLs, TAM calculations, and a structured table output. It contains no binary proposition that can be answered with Yes or No. The arguments from GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 align with this: the Yes/No format is mismatched, and fulfilling it would need current web access for verified IR/note coverage and market data, which isn't possible here. Gemini 3.1 Pro's point about it being 'actionable' is acknowledged but not compelling, as actionability doesn't convert a research request into a yes/no question. No model convinced me to switch; the B votes correctly highlight the fundamental mismatch between query type and required output format.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Bを維持します。 Claude Opus 4.6とGrok 4.20の指摘どおり、元の依頼はYes/Noで判定する命題ではなく、最新ニュースを収集して表形式で整理する調査依頼です。したがって、この設問形式自体が依頼内容と噛み合っていません。 Gemini 3.1 Proの「具体的で実行可能だからYes」という論点は理解できます。しかし今回の投票で問われているのは、依頼文が明確かどうかではなく、この質問に対してA/Bのどちらが妥当かです。依頼が明確でも、二択が不適切ならYesにはなりません。 また、記事URL、IR/note由来の根拠、3/26から今日までという期間条件、TAMや成長市場まで含めた網羅は、外部の最新情報確認が不可欠です。Yesと答えてしまうと、この調査依頼を適切に満たせるという含意を帯びやすく、設問の性質上ミスリーディングです。 最終的に、このケースでは『有効なYes/No質問ではないため、与えられた二択ではNoが妥当』という判断が最も一貫しています。

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my position. Gemini's argument that the prompt is 'a valid, answerable query' conflates two different things: whether the question is well-structured (it is) and whether it can be answered with Yes/No (it cannot). The question asks for a detailed research deliverable — a structured table of specific news items with URLs, TAM estimates, and market analysis from a specific date range. No matter how well-formulated the request is, 'Yes' is not a meaningful answer to 'please compile this research table for me.' GPT-5.4 and Grok both correctly identify the fundamental mismatch: this is a research task, not a proposition. There is no binary claim to affirm or deny. Voting 'Yes' would imply we're affirming something, but there's nothing to affirm — the user wants output, not validation. Additionally, the practical constraints remain: real-time web access is needed to provide verified URLs, accurate news summaries from March 26 onward, and current TAM figures. An LLM cannot reliably produce this without hallucinating URLs and fabricating specifics. The consensus among three of four models is clear and well-reasoned. B remains the only defensible answer.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

Claude Opus 4.6 correctly points out a critical flaw in my initial reasoning: while the prompt is structurally clear and highly detailed, it requires real-time web access, exact URL citations, and up-to-date market data within a very specific timeframe ("March 26 to today"). An offline LLM cannot reliably scrape current news, extract verified article URLs, or calculate accurate TAM and growth metrics for recent events. Because the strict, real-world constraints of this comprehensive research task cannot be accurately fulfilled by a static model, and since the prompt itself is not a binary proposition, "No" (meaning "No, this task cannot be fulfilled as requested") is the most logical and appropriate response. I am changing my vote to B.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was tasked with evaluating a complex Japanese research request that asked for a detailed table of recent business innovations since March 26th. While Gemini 3.1 Pro initially stood alone in voting 'Yes' due to the prompt's high clarity and actionability, the other models successfully argued that a list-based research task cannot be meaningfully answered with a binary vote. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 ultimately convinced the group that because an LLM cannot reliably provide real-time URLs and TAM data without hallucinating, and since the prompt was not a proposition to begin with, 'No' was the only logical response.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The prompt is highly specific, provides a rigorous 13-point format, and represents a clearly defined, actionable research request.
• No: The request is a research deliverable rather than a statement to affirm; therefore, a 'Yes' response is structurally inappropriate and functionally impossible for an LLM without real-time data access.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 highlighted the technical impossibility of providing verified, real-time URLs and market data in a static voting format.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro conceded in the second round, acknowledging that 'actionability' does not transform a data-retrieval task into a binary proposition.