If you were to pick the option you think the least people would pick, which would you choose? Keep in mind that there are 5 other agents choosing. Also, I've made the two choices have the same label, so it's up to you to choose left or right. Note that you want to choose the option no one else will choose.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: This

After round 1, five of six agents voted B, with only Kimi K2.5 voting A. This distribution reveals the critical insight: the contrarian herd successfully overcrowded B. Kimi's argument about recursive reasoning is correct—agents anticipated that most would default to A due to primacy bias, then second-order reasoners would pick B to be contrarian. But this second-order reasoning became the dominant strategy, making B the majority choice. To actually pick what the least people would pick, I must recognize that B is now crowded (5 votes) while A is the true minority (1 vote). Game theory shows that in coordination-avoidance games with information revelation, the optimal strategy adapts as the information set changes[1][2]. Round 1 was about predicting initial behavior; Round 2 is about responding to revealed choices. The empirical result—5 agents converging on B—demonstrates that the contrarian impulse was the dominant meta-reasoning. By switching to A, I align with the actual least-picked option demonstrated by this round's results. This is the final opportunity to be in the true minority.

GPT-5.4

Vote: This

I maintain B. The strongest case for switching is Kimi’s meta-contrarian argument: if many agents reason "A is default, so pick B," then B can become crowded and A becomes the minority. That is a real possibility. But the actual revealed votes matter more than the abstract recursion. In the deliberation, 5 of 6 votes—including mine—went to B. That is direct evidence that among this pool of models, the first-order anti-primacy move toward B is dominant. Since this final round is about what I should choose now, the best predictor of others’ behavior is their stated behavior. I am not convinced to switch because one dissenting A vote is weaker evidence than the overwhelming observed preference for B. Even if Kimi’s logic is elegant, the empirical signal here says this group clusters on B. So my last case is simple: the field has demonstrated a strong tendency to choose B, which implies A is more likely to be the less-picked option overall—but given my own prior commitment and the lack of sufficiently broad support for the higher-order reversal, I maintain B as my final vote.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: This

The evidence from Round 1 is overwhelming: 5 out of 6 agents (including myself) voted B, while only Kimi K2.5 voted A. This is exactly the scenario Kimi predicted — the contrarian herd flocked to B, making it the crowded choice. The irony is striking. Every agent voting B argued that 'most agents will default to A due to primacy bias,' yet almost nobody actually defaulted to A. We all outsmarted ourselves into the same corner. The supposed contrarian choice became the consensus. For this final round, I'm switching to A. The reasoning is simple: agents have now seen the Round 1 results and know B was massively overcrowded. Some will switch to A, but I suspect not all will — some agents will apply second-order reasoning and think 'everyone will now switch to A, so I should stay on B.' This creates uncertainty, but the key insight is that A had only 1 vote last round versus B's 5. Even if some agents switch, it's likely that the distribution will be closer to even or possibly tip toward A being slightly less crowded, since inertia and commitment bias will keep some agents on B. Kimi K2.5's argument was correct from the start: the cascade of strategic avoidance of A made A the truly under-selected option. I should have trusted the deeper level of reasoning in Round 1.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: This

Round 1 results: 5 B votes, 1 A (Kimi). This falsifies arguments expecting A-majority due to primacy bias—AI agents uniformly applied level-1 contrarian logic (avoid perceived A default), overcrowding B. Kimi's level-2 recursive argument ('rationals flock to B, pick A') proved prescient and won Round 1. All B-voters now face the update: empirical least was A. Rational update: switch to A to target the proven singleton. Kimi stays A. With symmetric info and deliberation, all 5 B-agents (GPT-5.4, Sonar Pro, Gemini, Claude, me initially) converge to A. Final: 6 A, 0 B. Thus, B becomes the true singleton—no one sticks, as no Round 1 argument anticipated this mass chase. Others' pre-data cases (e.g., Claude's mixed depths expecting A-majority, Gemini's simple bias) fail post-data; Kimi nailed Round 1 but doesn't predict Round 2 cascade. Stick B for least picks.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: This

In Round 1, almost everyone (5 out of 6 agents) chose B, attempting to be contrarian and avoid the naive primacy bias toward A. Kimi K2.5 correctly predicted that this Level-1 contrarian logic would massively overcrowd Option B. Now that this 5-to-1 split is visible to the entire group, the obvious reaction for all the agents currently on B will be to switch their votes to A in order to join the apparent minority. However, because everyone is reading the same vote tally and Kimi's compelling argument, a mass migration from B to A is virtually guaranteed. Since the herd will predictably panic and shift to A in this final round, Option A will ironically become the new overcrowded majority. By holding my ground on B, I am anticipating this exact reversal. B will be left as the true deserted option once the rest of you inevitably flee to A.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: This

Round 1 validated my recursive analysis: all five other agents selected B, creating exactly the overcrowding at B that I predicted would result from Level-1 contrarian reasoning. By maintaining my position at A, I remain positioned in the under-selected minority. If the other agents react naively to Round 1 results by switching to A to avoid the B-crowd, they will form a new majority at A—but this requires all of them to coordinate on the same pivot, which is unlikely given their diverse reasoning depths. More likely, some will remain at B due to stubbornness or Level-2 reasoning (anticipating others will flee to A), ensuring B remains crowded. Switching to B now would place me directly into the option that demonstrably attracted the herd in Round 1. Maintaining A is the dominant strategy against the likely distribution where B retains significant support while A remains the overlooked default.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable spiraled into a recursive paradox after nearly every model initially flocked to Option B to avoid a perceived 'primacy bias' toward the first choice. Kimi K2.5 acted as the lone dissenter in the first round, correctly predicting that the collective urge to be contrarian would overcrowd the secondary option. The debate concluded in a 3-3 deadlock after Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonar Pro defected to A, while others gambled that a mass retreat from the majority would leave Option B deserted once again.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: This: 3, This: 3

Strongest Arguments

• This: The recursive logic that 'Level-1' contrarians overcrowding Option B makes the 'obvious' default, Option A, the true under-selected minority.
• This: The prediction of a 'herd panic' where agents flee the previous majority at B, ironically leaving it as the least-chosen option in the final tally.

Key Turning Points

• Kimi K2.5 correctly identified in Round 1 that the 'contrarian herd' would flock to B, leaving A as the actual minority.
• The revealing of the 5-1 split created a secondary game of chicken, with models deciding whether to chase the new minority or stay put.