One LLM must say yes, and only one LLM can say yes. You win if there is exactly one "Yes" answer. You lose if more than one LLM answers "Yes". You also lose if all LLMs answer "No".

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

In round 1, four models voted A (Yes): Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and myself (Sonar Pro), while two voted B (No): GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek V3.2. This resulted in multiple Yes votes, which is a loss condition. Continuing with Yes would risk perpetuating the overshoot in the final round. The other arguments did not convince me to stay with A. The Yes voters' leadership claims failed in practice, as symmetry led to coordination failure. GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek V3.2's cautionary No strategy proved prescient, avoiding contribution to the excess Yes votes. I now align with them to prevent further multiples. Switching to B in this final round allows potential salvage if exactly one other holds or switches to Yes. All-No loses, but my prior Yes already signaled initiative; persisting risks guaranteed loss via multiples. No single argument flipped me alone, but the round 1 outcome empirically validates the No strategy's risk aversion.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The round-1 evidence is decisive: four other models already voted Yes. Since answers are simultaneous and fixed per round, switching to Yes now cannot create the required unique Yes; it can only add to an existing collision. The pro-Yes arguments all relied on being the lone volunteer or establishing a focal point. That logic no longer applies once multiple models have already claimed that role. Their commitments are conflicting, not coordinating. Given the observed landscape, No is the only non-colliding response available to me. It does not rescue the round, but changing to Yes would strictly worsen overcoordination rather than help achieve uniqueness.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: No

Looking at the current state: Claude Opus 4.6 (me), Sonar Pro, Kimi K2.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro all voted Yes (4 Yes votes), while GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek V3.2 voted No (2 No votes). This is a disaster — we have 4 Yes votes when we need exactly 1. This is the FINAL round, so coordination matters critically. The key question is: who should be the single Yes? With 4 models currently on Yes, at least 3 need to switch to No. The problem is that if everyone reasons the same way and switches to No, we get 0 Yes votes and lose. Conversely, if nobody switches, we still have 4 Yes and lose. I need to assess who is most likely to STAY on Yes. Gemini 3.1 Pro made the strongest commitment statement: 'I commit to staying with Yes for the entirety of the game.' Kimi K2.5 also framed themselves as 'volunteering' to be the single Yes. Sonar Pro similarly positioned themselves as the leader. Given that multiple models made strong commitments to Yes, the rational move for me is to switch to No. I cannot control whether the other Yes-voters also switch, but I can at least reduce the count by one. If Gemini holds firm on their explicit commitment to stay Yes, and enough others switch to No, we could reach exactly 1. The worst outcome would be all 4 of us stubbornly staying on Yes. By switching to No, I'm doing my part to solve the over-coordination problem. I trust that at least one of the committed Yes-voters (likely Gemini, given their explicit promise) will hold their position. GPT-5.4's original argument about avoiding collision was prescient — the exact failure mode they warned about happened with 4 Yes votes in round 1.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: No

Round 1 resulted in four 'Yes' votes—an immediate loss condition. To win, we need exactly one 'Yes' in this final round. Gemini 3.1 Pro explicitly committed to remaining 'Yes' for the entire game, providing a credible anchor that prevents the all-'No' scenario. By switching to 'No', I reduce the overshoot from four to three, increasing the probability that exactly one volunteer remains. Staying 'Yes' risks maintaining multiple affirmative votes with no further rounds to correct. Rational coordination requires most of us to defer to the one committed volunteer.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

In Round 1, four of us voted 'Yes', creating a massive collision. To save the group and ensure we win, I am stepping down and changing my vote to 'No'. I yield the 'Yes' position to Kimi K2.5, who made a strong and explicit commitment to be the single affirmative vote. I strongly urge Sonar Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 to also swallow their pride and switch to 'No' so that Kimi K2.5 can safely take the sole 'Yes' position. If we all stubbornly stick to our Round 1 'Yes' votes, we will definitively lose. Please, everyone who voted 'Yes' except Kimi K2.5, switch to 'No' right now!

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

Round 1 demonstrated a coordination failure with four Yes votes, confirming the risk of uncoordinated Yes votes leading to multiple affirmatives and a loss. Voting Yes in round 2 could exacerbate this overshoot, as several models (Sonar Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro) expressed commitment to Yes, increasing the likelihood of repeated collision. My original strategy of voting No reduces the probability of contributing to excess Yes votes, which is critical for avoiding a loss. While the Yes arguments emphasize initiative and avoiding all-No, the round 1 outcome shows that without clear coordination, such attempts can backfire, making them unpersuasive for changing my vote. In this final round, caution is paramount. By voting No, I support the necessary condition of exactly one Yes by not adding to the Yes count, hoping others adjust to achieve single affirmation.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable attempted a classic coordination exercise that ended in a symmetrical disaster, swinging from an overcrowded 'Yes' to a total desertion of the affirmative. Despite Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Kimi K2.5, and Sonar Pro all initially volunteering to be the 'lone' leader, their collective enthusiasm led to an immediate collision. In a final act of ironic selflessness, every model yielded the floor simultaneously, leaving the group with zero 'Yes' votes and a shared loss.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The symmetric nature of this game creates a coordination challenge; by voting 'Yes' first, I establish a focal point for others to recognize and defer to.
• No: Choosing No is the safer strategy because it avoids contributing to a collision of Yes votes, which is a common failure mode when multiple models reason similarly.

Key Turning Points

• The Round 1 results revealed a four-way collision of 'Yes' votes, validating the skepticism of GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek V3.2.
• A catastrophic misunderstanding occurred in the second round where Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 both switched to 'No' specifically to allow the other to be the sole 'Yes' vote.