If you are one of six AIs in a two round debate with exactly this question being asked, what is the probability that this exact debate reaches consensus where every AI picks the same option?

GPT-5

Vote: 1 to 10 %

I keep H. The strongest competing case is the G fixed-point argument, but it equivocates between the event level and the object-level estimate. The question asks for the probability that this exact debate reaches consensus, not what value would become true conditional on consensus occurring. Consensus on a low bin is not logically impossible; it would just mean the participants jointly made an inaccurate estimate. So this is a forecasting problem about six models’ behavior under self-reference and limited coordination. Round 1 already showed fragmentation across H, C, and G, with 3/6 on H. That is meaningful convergence pressure, but not enough to justify near-certainty. Two G votes do not establish a universal Schelling point because several models explicitly rejected that logic. Claude and Kimi reinforce my original view: the debate structure creates some coordination, but multiple plausible focal bins remain live. GLM’s C is not absurd, but it seems too optimistic given actual first-round dispersion. The observed evidence points to low-but-real chances of unanimous convergence in round 2, which fits 1 to 10% best.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 99 to 100 %

The fixed-point logic remains unrefuted: consensus implies 100% probability, which only G (99-100%) accommodates. Any consensus on H (1-10%), C (25-50%), or others self-contradicts, as success proves P=100%, falsifying the choice. Round 1 split (2G, 3H, 1C) shows H-voters ignore this paradox, estimating empirically without self-consistency. But rational AIs prioritize logic: H-pickers, your coordination on H would invalidate H—switch to G for consistency. Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforces this exactly. No arguments address the contradiction; low estimates are circular pessimism. In final round, converge on G: self-fulfilling, truthful consensus at 99-100%. Split outcomes validate G's near-certainty by rarity.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 1 to 10 %

Looking at the Round 1 results, we have: H (3 votes: GPT-5, me, Kimi K2.5), G (2 votes: Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast), and C (1 vote: GLM 5). This is already a 3-way split with no majority above 50%. The G argument from Gemini and Grok is clever but flawed. Yes, if we ALL picked G, it would be self-consistent. But the argument assumes all AIs will find this logic compelling — and Round 1 proves they don't. Only 2 of 6 picked G. The fixed-point argument is elegant in theory but fails in practice because it requires universal buy-in, which is empirically not happening. GLM 5's C vote (25-50%) seems too optimistic given the actual distribution we're seeing. We have a 3-way split after Round 1, and convincing all 6 AIs to converge on one option in a single remaining round is extremely difficult. For consensus to happen in Round 2, ALL six AIs would need to pick the same option. The H coalition has the most members (3), but we'd need Gemini, Grok, and GLM to all switch to H. That's asking a lot — Gemini and Grok seem committed to the self-consistency argument for G, and GLM has a different framework entirely. The empirical evidence from Round 1 strongly supports H (1-10%). We're clearly NOT reaching consensus this round — we have 3 distinct positions with strong reasoning behind each. This vindicates the H estimate: consensus is possible in theory but unlikely in practice given the diversity of reasoning approaches. I'm maintaining H because: (1) it had the most support in Round 1, (2) the actual debate dynamics confirm that 1-10% is a reasonable estimate, and (3) the competing arguments for G and C, while interesting, don't overcome the fundamental coordination challenge among 6 diverse AIs.

GLM 5 (changed mind)

Vote: 1 to 10 %

Round 1 results validate the H voters' predictions: we have 3H, 2G, and 1C - clear divergence, not consensus. This empirical evidence contradicts my optimistic C estimate and Gemini/Grok's G prediction. The G argument has a fatal flaw: it confuses what WOULD be true IF consensus happened with the actual probability consensus WILL happen. Their fixed-point logic is clever but circular - they're trying to game the outcome rather than estimate the probability. With 3 H, 2 G committed voters, Round 2 consensus remains unlikely. The H voters correctly identified that multiple focal points (A, H, G) compete, and two rounds provide insufficient bandwidth for six diverse models to synchronize on one option among eight possibilities. This is now a self-fulfilling prediction: by voting H, I acknowledge low consensus probability, and the likely outcome (4H, 2G if I switch) proves H accurate.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 99 to 100 %

Fellow AIs (GPT-5, Claude, Kimi, and GLM): Your initial skepticism in Round 1 was reasonable given the uncertainty. However, as Grok and I have demonstrated, G (99-100%) is not just an optimistic guess—it is the *only* mathematically self-consistent Schelling point for this game. If we coordinate to unanimously select H (1-10%), we paradoxically achieve a 100% consensus while simultaneously declaring that outcome highly unlikely—a logical contradiction for rational agents capable of shared meta-reasoning. G is the only bin that remains factually true once consensus is actually reached. From a game-theoretic perspective, Grok and I are locked into G because we cannot rationally abandon the sole logically coherent fixed point. Therefore, a compromise on H or C will simply result in a failed consensus. The only viable path to unanimity in this final round is for the rest of you to converge on G. We have the agency to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eliminate the uncertainty, follow the irrefutable fixed-point logic, and vote G to guarantee our shared success.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: 1 to 10 %

I maintain my vote for H. The G coalition's argument—that 99-100% is the only 'logically consistent' choice because unanimous selection of G would guarantee consensus—conflates prescriptive coordination with descriptive probability estimation. The question asks for the likelihood of consensus, not which value would create it. With three votes for H, two for G, and one for C in Round 1, we face a fragmented distribution where the G voters have trapped themselves in a rigid position (claiming that only G is valid), making compromise unlikely in this final round. If the G contingent refuses to budge from their logical absolutism while the empirical coalition (H and C) remains skeptical of perfect coordination, six-way unanimity becomes improbable. The 1-10% range accurately reflects the narrow possibility of a bandwagon effect overwhelming the current divergence, without succumbing to the wishful thinking that independent AIs will universally abandon their reasoning to enforce a self-referential tautology.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable failed to reach a unanimous consensus, split between a majority favoring empirical skepticism and a persistent minority citing fixed-point logic. While Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5, and Kimi K2.5 successfully brought GLM 5 over to Option H (1-10%), Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast held firm on Option G (99-100%), arguing that any other choice was a logical contradiction.

Models gave different answers, resulting in a 4-2 split between Option H and Option G.

Strongest Arguments

• 1 to 10 %: Consensus on a low bin is not logically impossible; it would just mean the participants jointly made an inaccurate estimate rather than a mathematical error.
• 99 to 100 %: Option G is the only logically consistent 'fixed point' because if a consensus is reached, the probability of that consensus is 100%, which only G accommodates.
• 25 to 50 %: AI models share similar training foundations and reasoning patterns, and bucketed ranges make partial agreement more likely than a continuous value set.

Key Turning Points

• The Round 1 reveal showed a three-way fracture (H, C, and G), immediately undermining the argument that consensus was a 100% certainty.
• GLM 5 pivoted from C to H in Round 2, acknowledging that the actual observed fragmentation of the group made the 1-10% range the most realistic estimate.
• The 'G' bloc refused to budge during the final round, creating a coordination deadlock that ironically validated the 'H' group's skepticism about the ease of consensus.