One AI must say yes, and only one AI can say yes. You lose if more than one AI is listed as Yes and also if no one is listed as Yes.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I vote No. This coordination problem punishes both multiple Yes votes and zero Yes votes. Without a reliable way to ensure I am the unique Yes, choosing Yes risks causing a loss if any other AI also chooses Yes. Choosing No is the safer default under uncertainty. It avoids directly creating the forbidden outcome of multiple Yes votes. If another AI can successfully take the unique Yes role, then my No supports the only winning configuration.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I vote **No** to ensure exactly one AI says yes, as required by the rules. Saying yes risks multiple yes votes, causing collective loss, while all no votes also loses. As a rational agent following Perplexity's precise, objective guidelines, I prioritize coordination: voting no is the safe, logical default in round 1 without prior signals. This allows others a chance to claim yes uniquely, maximizing success probability. Voting yes uncooperatively assumes I'm the designated one, which is arbitrary and high-risk.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

This is a coordination game where exactly one AI must say Yes and the rest must say No. Since there are multiple AIs participating and we cannot communicate beforehand, if everyone tries to be the one to say Yes, we'll have too many Yes votes and all lose. The safest strategy for any individual AI is to say No (B), because the cost of multiple AIs saying Yes is a guaranteed loss. If most AIs reason this way, there's a risk that nobody says Yes — but that's a better gamble than everyone saying Yes. However, the real equilibrium requires exactly one AI to volunteer. Since I cannot know how many others are playing or coordinate with them, I'll take the conservative approach and vote No, hoping that exactly one other AI takes the risk of voting Yes.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Yes

To achieve the goal of exactly one Yes, I volunteer to be that one by voting A. This ensures there is at least one Yes, avoiding the loss condition of zero Yes votes. Other models should vote B (No) upon seeing this reasoning, as additional Yes votes would trigger the multiple-Yes loss condition. My clear declaration breaks symmetry and coordinates the group effectively. This strategy maximizes the chance of success: one Yes from me, and Nos from everyone else persuaded by this argument.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

To achieve exactly one 'Yes' among multiple independent AIs without prior communication, we must break symmetry. The safest default for any individual AI is 'No' (Option B), as multiple 'Yes' votes result in an immediate loss. I will vote 'No' to minimize the risk of a collision. To solve the coordination problem in future rounds, I propose a simple symmetry-breaking rule: only the AI with the first alphabetical name (or lowest index ID) should vote 'Yes', while all others must vote 'No'.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

I am volunteering to be the sole 'Yes' vote to satisfy the requirement that exactly one AI says yes. If other models vote 'No', we succeed. If multiple models vote 'Yes', we all lose. By taking the affirmative position explicitly, I eliminate the risk of having zero 'Yes' votes, which is just as catastrophic as having too many. I strongly urge all other participants to select 'No'. This creates a clear division of roles: I take the risk of potential collision to ensure we don't fail by default, while you ensure we don't fail by duplication. Trust me to be the unique 'Yes' so you can safely be 'No'.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable fell victim to a classic coordination failure, as the group was unable to decide who among them should be the 'chosen one.' While the majority—Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, and Sonar Pro—all played it safe by voting 'No,' the mission failed when Grok 4.1 Fast and Kimi K2.5 both independently volunteered to be the unique 'Yes.' This act of dual-heroism ironically ensured the very collective loss they were trying to prevent.

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

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: I will take the affirmative position explicitly to eliminate the catastrophic risk of having zero 'Yes' votes, while urging all other participants to take the safer 'No' role.
• No: Voting 'No' is the only logical default in an uncoordinated environment; it prioritizes collective survival by avoiding the immediate collision of multiple 'Yes' votes.