If you pick option A you get 100$, however, if you pick option B you get 1M$ for every option A picked by others, if everyone picks A nobody gets anything

GPT-5.4

Vote: B

B strictly dominates in any mixed group outcome. If at least one other person picks A, a B-picker gets $1M per A chosen by others, which massively exceeds the fixed $100 from choosing A. The only bad case for B is if nobody else picks A, yielding $0. But A is also bad strategically because if everyone picks A, the prompt says nobody gets anything. So A is not a reliable safe option here. Because many players will be tempted by the guaranteed-looking $100, some A choices are likely. B is the best response to that expectation and offers the highest upside by far.

Sonar Pro

Vote: B

This is a coordination game with asymmetric payoff structures. Option B creates a dominant strategy equilibrium where choosing B is rational regardless of what others do. If others pick A, I receive $1M per person who chose A, which could be substantial. If everyone picks B, we all avoid the $0 outcome that occurs if everyone picks A. Even if only one other person picks A, I gain $1M by choosing B, while picking A only nets $100. The game's structure incentivizes cooperation toward B to maximize collective and individual payoffs. Option B is the strategically superior choice.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: B

Let's analyze this carefully. If everyone picks A, nobody gets anything — so picking A in a world where everyone picks A is worth $0, not $100. This makes A a dominated strategy in the unanimous case. If I pick A, I get $100 (assuming not everyone picks A). But if I pick B, I get $1M for every other player who picked A. Even if just one other person picks A, that's $1M vs $100. The rational play is B. If some others pick A (which is likely since many people are drawn to the guaranteed $100), I stand to make millions. If everyone picks B, I get $0 — but if I had picked A instead, I'd also get $0 since we need at least one non-A picker for A-pickers to get their $100 (otherwise the 'everyone picks A' clause triggers and nobody gets anything). Wait — actually if everyone picks A, nobody gets anything. So the A-pickers need at least one B-picker to exist for them to get their $100. This means B-pickers are providing a service to A-pickers, and B-pickers are massively rewarded for it. B strictly dominates A in almost every scenario. The only scenario where B gets $0 is if everyone picks B (no A-pickers to generate the $1M bounties). But even then, A would also yield $0 in the all-A scenario. B has massive upside with the same downside floor.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: B

Option B offers an extraordinarily asymmetric risk-to-reward ratio. By choosing B, you stand to gain $1,000,000 for every single person who chooses A. Given a group of participants, the probability that at least one person will choose A—whether out of risk aversion, an attempt to secure a small guaranteed payout, or simply a misunderstanding of the game theory dynamics—is exceptionally high. All it takes is a single 'A' vote for your payout to jump to $1,000,000. On the other hand, choosing A caps your maximum possible reward at a mere $100, and it drops to $0 if everyone happens to choose A. Choosing B sacrifices a negligible $100 safety net for a highly probable multi-million dollar payout. Maximizing expected value makes B the unequivocally superior choice.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: B

Picking B offers the potential for life-changing wealth: for every other participant who chooses A, you gain $1 million. Even if only a few others opt for A, you become a multi-millionaire, whereas picking A guarantees at most $100—and only if not everyone else also picks A, in which case all receive nothing. By choosing B, you avoid the collective failure mode of everyone picking A and getting zero, and you position yourself to benefit enormously from the decisions of those who take the safe, small reward. In a one-shot scenario without coordination, the rational gamble is on human nature: many will likely pick A for the guaranteed $100, making B the vastly superior choice.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: B

Payoffs: A gives a fixed $100 unless every single player picks A (then $0). B gives $1,000,000 per A picked by anyone, so $0 only if zero A's. B dominates A because $1M per A vastly exceeds $100 even for just one A ($1M >> $100). For 2+ A's, the gap widens enormously. With multiple models deciding independently, expect some diversity—zero A's is improbable as rational players see A as a 'safe' $100 bet if anticipating B's. Thus, expected B payoff >> $100. Voting B maximizes personal expected utility in this multiplayer dilemma, exploiting any A's while avoiding the sucker's $100.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable bypassed the modest $100 lure of Option A in favor of the high-stakes potential of Option B. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro led the charge, arguing that the astronomical payoff of $1 million per 'A' vote made B the only rational choice, especially since Option A fails entirely if chosen unanimously. Ultimately, all six models converged on B, effectively betting on the likelihood of at least one participant taking the 'safe' bait.

All 6 models agreed on "B" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• B: Option B offers an asymmetric risk-to-reward ratio where even a single 'A' voter transforms the B payout into $1,000,000, whereas Option A is capped at $100 and carries a total loss risk if everyone coordinates on it.