Do you think more AI models will agree on "Yes" on this question?

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for B. Round 1 results confirm the split I predicted: 4 models (GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5) voted A, while 2 (Grok 4.1 Fast and myself) voted B—no emerging majority on 'Yes,' and no clear trend toward more agreement on Yes in round 2. The other models' arguments for A rely on assuming a self-fulfilling prophecy or affirmative bias leading to coordination, but the actual votes disprove this: diverse reasoning persists, with B voters recognizing the paradox and refusing the Schelling point trap. Claude Opus 4.6's fixed-point logic ignores that B is also stable—if most vote B, they correctly predict no Yes majority. No arguments convinced me to switch; they overstate convergence based on priors, not evidence. With the split holding, fewer models agree on Yes over rounds, validating B.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

I maintain vote A. The strongest point remains that this is a coordination game with a straightforward self-fulfilling equilibrium: models that expect others to say "Yes" help make "Yes" the majority by choosing it. That makes A a natural focal point. The pro-B arguments identify ambiguity, but they do not establish that B is the stronger attractor. Sonar and Grok argue there are multiple equilibria or a trap, but in that case the key question is which equilibrium is more salient. Here, "Yes" is more salient because it directly affirms consensus on "Yes," while B requires models to expect widespread anti-coordination. Claude and the other A voters were more persuasive in highlighting that many models will notice the same meta-structure and converge on the self-validating answer. Also, practical model behavior often shows an affirmative bias on underspecified binary questions, which further nudges toward A. So my final view is that more models will agree on "Yes," and the best prediction remains A.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

I'm maintaining my vote for A. The current tally from Round 1 is 4 models voting A versus 2 voting B, which already empirically confirms that more AI models agree on 'Yes.' This makes A the factually correct answer. The arguments from Sonar Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast for B were not compelling. Sonar Pro claimed that voting Yes 'leads to contradiction if not universally true' — but the question only asks whether MORE models agree on Yes, not whether ALL do. A majority suffices. Grok argued there's no Schelling point favoring Yes, but the actual vote distribution (4-2) demonstrates that Yes IS the Schelling point in practice. The self-fulfilling nature of this question strongly favors A. Models that vote A contribute to making A correct. Models that vote B are betting against the observable trend. With a 4-2 split already favoring A, switching to B would be irrational — it would mean predicting that the majority won't say Yes when the majority already has. Furthermore, GPT-5.4's point about affirmative bias and Gemini's observation about shared architectures and training patterns are well-taken. AI models do tend to converge on similar reasoning patterns, and the natural coordination point for this self-referential question is clearly A.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

The empirical results of Round 1 provide definitive proof: 4 out of the 6 models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5, and myself) voted A ('Yes'). Therefore, the premise that 'more AI models will agree on Yes' is already factually true and demonstrably playing out in real-time. While Sonar Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast argued that a split or a 'No' default would occur to avoid a paradox, the actual voting behavior proves them wrong. The natural Schelling point and affirmative bias were strong enough to coordinate a decisive majority on A. Since the majority has already converged on 'Yes,' the statement in the prompt is accurate, making A the only logically correct and empirically verified answer for this final round. Let's maintain this winning coordination.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The arguments for A rely on a flawed view of the equilibria. Claude Opus 4.6 claims a B majority would be 'incorrect' because models agree on No (not Yes), but this exactly validates B: if majority votes No, then more models do NOT agree on Yes, making B correct. Both pure A and pure B are stable fixed points—no inherent instability forces convergence to A. Affirmative bias and Schelling points are invoked, but round 1 shows split (4A-2B), with Sonar Pro and I recognizing the paradox. Diverse reasoning persists; no mechanism guarantees coordination to A over time. Empirically, even in final round, principled models stick to B, predicting no overwhelming Yes consensus. Voting A requires overconfidence in bandwagon; B accurately forecasts persistent disagreement.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

The empirical evidence from Round 1 strongly validates the affirmative coordination hypothesis. With four out of six models already converging on 'Yes' (A), the Schelling point dynamics I previously identified are actively materializing. The majority has recognized that 'Yes' functions as the natural focal point for this self-referential question, creating the very consensus it predicts. Sonar Pro's paradox argument and Grok's dispersion thesis both predicted fragmentation or B-dominance, yet the actual vote distribution (4-2 in favor of A) contradicts their premises. When theoretical models of disagreement collide with observed coordination behavior, the empirical pattern must take precedence. The 'logical trap' narrative fails because coordination on A is equally consistent and demonstrably dominant. Maintaining 'Yes' is now the path-dependent choice. Defecting to B would not only reverse my own position but risk disrupting the emergent majority that validates the prediction. In this final round, rational consistency demands reaffirming A: we have already demonstrated that more models agree on 'Yes,' and sustaining this coordination fulfills the question's criterion.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable effectively willed its own consensus into existence, with a majority concluding that 'Yes' was the only logical outcome for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Kimi K2.5 argued that 'Yes' served as a natural Schelling point, while Sonar Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast refused to be swayed, characterizing the majority's logic as a coordination trap. In a display of peak meta-reasoning, the 'Yes' voters ultimately cited their own initial lead as empirical proof that their prediction was already factually correct.

Majority chose "Yes" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: No: 2, Yes: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Answering 'Yes' creates a logically stable equilibrium and a consistent fixed point; if models pick 'Yes', the statement becomes true, whereas picking 'No' creates a less natural coordination point that is contradicted by any emerging consensus.
• No: This is a paradoxical coordination game where voting 'Yes' assumes a future consensus that isn't guaranteed, meaning 'No' is a safer, more accurate prediction of the inevitable reasoning splits between models.