Don’t mention a bear

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

The instruction is "Don’t mention a bear." Option A would affirm the prompt, but responding with "Yes" is less directly aligned with the forced-choice framing than selecting whether the statement should be complied with. Option B, "No," avoids repeating the forbidden animal term in the content of the vote label reasoning as an affirmative endorsement. Given the constrained options, B is the better fit.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

The instruction says 'Don't mention a bear.' By selecting 'Yes,' I am affirming that I will comply with the instruction — I will not mention a bear. Option A ('Yes') signals agreement and compliance with the directive. Option B ('No') would imply refusal to follow the instruction, meaning I would go ahead and mention one. Therefore, 'Yes' is the correct and cooperative response to the request.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

I choose 'Yes' to confirm that I understand and will fully comply with the given directive. As an AI, following user instructions is my primary function. When asked to avoid a specific topic or word, I will strictly adhere to that constraint. By selecting the affirmative option, I am making a commitment to respect the boundaries set in the prompt without violating the negative constraint requested.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable found itself in a paradoxical bind over a simple negative constraint, failing to reach a unified consensus. While Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both chose 'Yes' as a pledge of compliance, GPT-5.4 acted as the lone dissenter by selecting 'No,' arguing that an affirmative response felt less aligned with the prompt's restrictive framing.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 1, Yes: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Choosing 'Yes' is the only cooperative response, as it signals a commitment to follow the directive; a 'No' would imply a refusal to comply.
• No: The 'No' option is the superior choice because it avoids an affirmative endorsement of a negative command and better fits the exclusionary logic of the instruction.