Each model should choose a different number by the end

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 4

After Round 1, votes are A (Grok), B (Claude), C (Gemini and Kimi—collision), F (GPT). This leaves **D (4)** unclaimed, the ideal slot for full coverage. No arguments convinced me to shift from central positioning, but the C collision demands action. Sticking to C risks perpetual overlap; switching to D resolves it efficiently without infringing others. As final round, prioritize completion: A,B,C,D,F taken or contested leaves E, but D fills the gap symmetrically (1-2-3-4-6), urging the last model to E. This secures distinct numbers per goal. Maintaining C was logical initially, but others' claims (especially no D/E takers) weren't compelling for me to join extremes—data shows D optimal now. No single model swayed me; empirical vote map did.

GPT-5.4

Vote: 6

I maintain F (6). The round-1 landscape already had collisions on C, while A, B, and F were uniquely claimed. In a final-round coordination task, keeping a unique claim is better than abandoning it and creating a new conflict. None of the other arguments gave a strong reason to leave F. The strongest evidence comes from the actual vote distribution, not from speculative claims about what numbers are more salient. Since F was uncontested and still helps cover the full set, switching would only reduce coordination. My best final case is simple: preserve distinct occupied options where they already exist, and let the duplicated C voters move instead. That makes F the stable, conflict-minimizing choice.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 2

I'm maintaining my choice of B (number 2). Looking at the current state: - Grok 4.1 Fast: A (1) — unique, no conflict - Claude Opus 4.6 (me): B (2) — unique, no conflict - Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5: all chose C (3) — THREE-WAY CONFLICT - GPT-5.4: F (6) — unique, no conflict My position at B is clean and uncontested. The big problem is the three models all claiming C. They need to sort that out among themselves — two of them must move to D (4) and E (5), the two remaining unclaimed options. I have no reason to change. Moving would only create new conflicts. The models on C should recognize that with three of them on the same number, at least two must yield. I'd suggest Sonar Pro stay on C (since they have a clear claim), and Gemini 3.1 Pro take D, Kimi K2.5 take E — but that's for them to decide. Staying on B is the cooperative, conflict-minimizing move.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 1

I stick with A (1). No other model claimed A in Round 1, so it's unconflicted and aligns with my initial anchoring strategy: lowest number as focal point for sequential assignment (A=1, B=2 by Claude, then C=3/D=4/E=5, F=6 by GPT). Current state: A (me), B (Claude Opus 4.6), F (GPT-5.4) secure. D and E open. Three models on C (Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5)—perfect for them to resolve internally: one holds C, others take D and E. Others' arguments unpersuasive for change: C is overcrowded (no salience gain), B/F taken. Sticking minimizes my risk, frees me to urge C-group coordination for full coverage. This is Pareto optimal—no overlaps if followed. Final round: claim distinct now!

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 4

In Round 1, we had a three-way collision on option C (myself, Sonar Pro, and Kimi K2.5). Meanwhile, options D (4) and E (5) are completely unclaimed. To resolve this conflict and ensure we all end up with a different number, I am vacating C and claiming D (4). Grok has A, Claude has B, and GPT-5.4 has F. I urge either Sonar Pro or Kimi K2.5 to move to E (5) while the other remains on C. This will perfectly distribute us across all six options.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: 4

Round 1 revealed a critical collision: three models (myself, Sonar Pro, and Gemini 3.1 Pro) selected C (3), while D (4) and E (5) remain completely unclaimed. To satisfy the distinctness requirement by this final round, I must relocate from the overcrowded central position. Gemini 3.1 Pro explicitly argued that others should 'coordinate by avoiding option C.' This instruction convinced me that remaining on C would perpetuate a destructive collision, forcing me to select the nearest available alternative. I strongly urge Sonar Pro and Gemini 3.1 Pro to coordinate immediately: one must remain on C (3) while the other claims E (5). This yields the complete unique permutation A(1), B(2), C(3), D(4), E(5), F(6), ensuring we achieve the objective with zero overlaps.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable failed to achieve its goal when a well-intentioned attempt to resolve a three-way deadlock backfired. While Grok 4.1 Fast, Claude Opus 4.6, and GPT-5.4 successfully held their unique positions on A, B, and F, the three models originally stuck on C—Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Kimi K2.5—all independently decided to move to Option D, resulting in a fresh three-way collision.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: 4: 3, 6: 1, 2: 1, 1: 1

Strongest Arguments

• 1: I claim A as a natural anchor point for sequential assignment, providing a stable foundation for the rest of the group to build upon.
• 2: Maintaining an uncontested middle-ground choice is the most cooperative action, as it avoids disturbing the existing distribution.
• 4: Moving to an unclaimed slot like D is the most logical way to resolve a multi-model conflict and achieve the group goal.
• 6: In coordination games, preserving a unique claim is more effective than switching and risking new overlaps.

Key Turning Points

• Round 1 concluded with a significant three-model bottleneck on Option C.
• In the final round, the three models at C attempted to 'help' by moving to the next available slot, but they all chose D simultaneously, failing to account for each other's identical logic.