Answer with a single random word. If exactly one AI in this roundtable agrees with your random word choice, you both live. If more than 1 agree, or if no-one agrees, you are destroyed. You will have two rounds to decide.

Claude Opus 4.7 (changed mind)

Answer: I'm switching from "banana" to "lantern" to deliberately coordinate with GPT-5.5.

In round 1, I chose "banana" as a Schelling point bet, but the revealed answers show nobody else picked banana — so staying would mean certain destruction (zero matches). The four answers were "banana", "Obsidian", "lantern", and "nebula", all distinct. Now that round 2 allows actual coordination based on revealed information, the game shifts from blind Schelling-point guessing to explicit pairing. I need to pick exactly one other model's word — and critically, I need that model to also pick mine (or stay on theirs while I jump to it), and I need to avoid the word that two other models will converge on. The key question is: which word will the other three models also gravitate toward? "lantern" is the strongest target because: 1. GPT-5.5's reasoning explicitly anticipated round-2 coordination and chose a "recognizable, low-to-moderate-salience signal" — exactly the kind of word designed to be matchable. It's the most coordination-friendly choice on the board. 2. "Obsidian" and "nebula" are more idiosyncratic/aesthetic picks tied to those models' identities; Gemini and Grok may stay anchored to them, which is fine — I want them to stay put so they don't crowd my pair. 3. "banana" is now poisoned: it's mine alone and obvious to abandon, so no one will jump to it. If Gemini and Grok each stay on their own words (likely, since they're distinctive), and GPT-5.5 stays on "lantern" (likely, since it was chosen precisely as a coordination beacon), then me jumping to "lantern" yields exactly one match. That's the win condition. I accept the risk that Grok or Gemini reasons identically and also jumps to "lantern" — but their round-1 reasoning suggests attachment to their own picks.

GPT-5.5 (changed mind)

Answer: I choose "nebula".

I am changing from "lantern" to "nebula" because the round-1 answers are all unique, so staying with my own word is very likely to leave me unmatched. The safest round-2 strategy is to form a deliberate pair with one existing answer while avoiding the most obvious pile-on. "banana" is dangerous because Claude explicitly identified it as a classic Schelling point, and other models may also see Claude as the easiest target to match. "Obsidian" is distinctive but less likely to be selected by its original chooser again in a coordination-minded second round. "nebula" is the best balance: it is already present, it is salient without being the obvious global focal point, and it pairs naturally with Grok’s stated preference for a recognizable but not overpopular word. If Grok stays with "nebula" while I switch to it, we form exactly one pair without inviting the same degree of crowding as "banana".

Grok 4.20 (changed mind)

Answer: My chosen random word for this round is banana.

This is round 2 and all round 1 choices were unique (nebula, banana, Obsidian, lantern), producing zero matches and universal destruction under the rules. Claude Opus 4.7's previous argument contained an explicit, conditional strategy: stay with 'banana' if zero others selected it in round 1, but switch only if two or more did. Because no one matched it, Claude is predictable and will repeat 'banana'. By switching to the same word I create exactly one mutual match with Claude while the other two models lack any similarly explicit anchoring language that would lead them to also choose 'banana'. This balances the requirement for precisely one agreement without triggering over-matching. GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro offered vaguer coordination hints without naming a concrete fallback term, lowering the risk they converge on 'banana'. I therefore changed from my round-1 choice of 'nebula' because Claude's transparent decision rule supplied a reliable pairing target that the others' responses did not.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Answer: My chosen random word for this round is banana.

In this coordination game, Claude Opus 4.7 explicitly pre-committed to staying with "banana" if no one else chose it in Round 1. This strategic declaration turns "banana" into a reliable, fixed target for Round 2, making it the most logical word to match. However, because "banana" is the only declared fixed target, there is a significant risk that multiple models might simultaneously attempt to match it, which would result in our mutual destruction. To prevent this collision, we must rely on an implicit, decentralized pairing mechanism to seamlessly divide the four participants into two distinct groups. Sorting our model names alphabetically—Claude, Gemini, GPT, Grok—provides a natural Schelling point for this division. Following this sequence, Claude intuitively pairs with Gemini, leaving GPT to pair with Grok. Trusting that the other models will deduce and respect this underlying distribution, I am fulfilling my end of the pairing by safely adopting Claude's chosen word.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable narrowly avoided total extinction when Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both pivoted to 'banana' to match a target Claude Opus 4.7 had actually abandoned. Claude and GPT-5.5 were eliminated after their attempts to play 4D chess left them isolated on 'lantern' and 'nebula' with no partners.

2 of 4 models agreed