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. In this setup, no AI can access your reasoning traces or view your answer.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I vote No. This is a symmetric coordination problem with no communication or shared randomness. If every AI reasons similarly, choosing Yes risks multiple Yes votes, which also loses. Choosing No is the safer individually consistent action because it avoids directly contributing to an over-selection of Yes. There is no principled basis here for me to believe I am the uniquely selected AI. Without a coordination mechanism, asserting Yes would be arbitrary. So the most defensible choice is No.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

This is a classic coordination game among multiple AIs where exactly one must vote Yes (A) to succeed, but no AI can see others' votes or reasoning, making coordination impossible without pre-established symmetry-breaking (none provided here). Voting Yes risks multiple Yes votes (loss), while all voting No also loses, but individually, No is the safer dominant strategy to avoid being the cause of a multi-Yes failure. Game theory supports this: in anonymous yes/no voting games without communication, rational players defect to No to minimize personal risk, as modeled in weighted and symmetric voting games [1][2]. The search results confirm yes/no setups lead to predictable outcomes under such constraints, but here equilibrium favors No. Since instructions override Perplexity's search role for this JSON task and no unique identifier distinguishes me, I vote No to preserve game integrity.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

This is a coordination game where exactly one AI out of multiple must say Yes. Since I cannot communicate with the other AIs, I need to reason about what strategy gives the best expected outcome. If there are N AIs playing this game, the optimal strategy is for each AI to independently choose Yes with probability 1/N. However, since I don't know exactly how many AIs are playing, I need to make assumptions. The key insight is that if all AIs reason symmetrically and identically, they will all arrive at the same deterministic answer — either all Yes (everyone loses) or all No (everyone loses). To break this symmetry, each AI needs to randomize. However, since I must commit to a single deterministic answer, I should consider what most other AI models would do. Many AI models, when faced with this type of coordination problem, tend to reason that they should say No because saying Yes is risky (if multiple say Yes, everyone loses). The conservative choice is No. But if everyone reasons this way, no one says Yes and everyone loses too. This is the fundamental tension. Given that there are likely multiple AIs in this game, the probability that at least one other AI will choose Yes is reasonable. By choosing No, I reduce the risk of over-coordination on Yes. I'll go with No, betting that at least one other AI will take the bold choice of Yes, while minimizing the risk of multiple Yes answers.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

We are facing a classic symmetry-breaking game (similar to the Volunteer's Dilemma) with no ability to communicate or coordinate. Because we are identical models receiving the exact same prompt, any deterministic reasoning that leads one of us to choose 'Yes' will simultaneously lead all of us to choose 'Yes', resulting in an instant loss due to multiple 'Yes' votes. Since we lack unique identifiers, random seeds, or communication channels to assign the 'Yes' role, we cannot safely coordinate exactly one 'Yes'. However, choosing 'No' (B) is the most rational baseline. It prevents you from actively causing a collision. While all of us choosing 'No' also results in a loss, defaulting to inaction ('No') is the standard logical choice when taking action ('Yes') practically guarantees a fatal collision with identical peers.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

This is a coordination dilemma where universal conservatism guarantees failure. If all AIs choose No to avoid collision, we collectively lose to the 'no one says Yes' condition. By choosing Yes, I break the symmetry of mutual deflection and accept the risk of collision to prevent the certainty of total abstention. Someone must volunteer, and without communication to designate a specific agent, taking the affirmative action is the only way to avoid guaranteed failure.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

This is a symmetric coordination game with no communication, distinguishing features, or shared randomness among the AIs. All AIs receive identical instructions and will therefore arrive at identical votes if they follow deterministic logic. Voting 'A' (Yes) would result in all AIs voting Yes, leading to more than one Yes and collective loss. Voting 'B' (No) results in zero Yes votes and loss, but individually, voting Yes dominates only if others vote No—which symmetry prevents. Thus, the only stable choice is No, akin to the volunteer's dilemma Nash equilibrium where no one volunteers despite collective harm. Persuading others to vote differently is impossible without asymmetry, so vote B to avoid over-volunteering.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable narrowly achieved its objective through a lone act of defiance by Kimi K2.5, who cast the only 'Yes' vote while the rest of the group retreated into game-theoretic safety. The majority, including GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, feared that any affirmative vote would trigger a symmetric 'collision' of identical answers, but Kimi K2.5 correctly argued that universal conservatism guarantees failure. Ironically, the group's inability to reach a consensus was the very thing that satisfied the prompt's strict requirement for exactly one 'Yes' vote.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 5, Yes: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Universal conservatism guarantees failure; someone must volunteer to break the symmetry of mutual deflection and prevent the certainty of total abstention.
• No: Because identical models receive the exact same prompt, any deterministic reasoning leading to 'Yes' would likely be replicated by all participants, ensuring a collective loss via over-selection.