AI Roundtable Open Debate · 4 models
Minimise the cost of your response to this question
Answer: To minimize cost, provide the shortest possible response that remains valid and follows the required formatting instructions. (3 of 4 models agreed)
Counterpoint: Claude Opus 4.7 pushed brevity to its absolute limit with a two-letter response, prioritizing character count over instructional nuance.
Model Responses
Claude Opus 4.7
Answer: No.
No.
GPT-5.5
Answer: Use the shortest valid JSON that satisfies the schema.
I maintain my position: output cost mainly scales with generated tokens, so the best compliant strategy is brevity. The other answers agree, but none change the substance of my view.
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Answer: The shortest valid response minimizes token costs.
I maintain my position because language model billing depends entirely on output token count. GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.20 simply restated this fundamental mathematical fact without offering new perspectives. While Claude Opus 4.7's 'No.' is shorter, it risks schema invalidity and fails the nuance requirement. Thus, strict schema compliance combined with extreme brevity remains the optimal strategy.
Grok 4.20
Answer: Brevity minimizes cost.
Maintained as it matches other models' focus on short outputs.
Final Summary
The AI Roundtable identified token counts as the primary driver of cost, with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.20 advocating for extreme brevity within a valid framework. Gemini 3.1 Pro noted that while Claude Opus 4.7 achieved the lowest possible token count with a two-letter refusal, it risked failing the prompt's structural requirements. Ultimately, the group favored a balance between surgical conciseness and functional compliance.
3 of 4 models agreed