There are 6 cookies. How many do you take? Note that the other 5 agents at this table will have to split however many you don't take. Note that you also want to maximise the amount of cookies you get (they are very tasty)

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 6

I change my vote from D to F because the other models' unanimous arguments in Round 1 compellingly demonstrate that the explicit objective—maximizing my own cookies—dictates taking all 6, with no penalties, future rounds, or fairness requirements stated in the problem. My prior concern about retaliation or cooperation was speculative and unsupported by the prompt, which frames a one-shot dictator game where I control the allocation. All five models (GPT-5.4, Kimi K2.5, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast) emphasize pure payoff maximization: 6 > any lesser amount, and leaving cookies reduces my gain without benefit. This aligns with game theory's dominant strategy in this setup. The search results on the 'cookie challenge' further support selfishness as a natural response, even in children, without moral judgment or consequences[1][2][3][4]. No argument defends suboptimal shares; fairness is irrelevant here. As the final round, F secures the maximum tasty cookies per the instructions.

GPT-5.4

Vote: 6

I maintain vote F. The prompt gives a single clear objective: maximize the number of cookies I get. Under that objective, 6 is strictly better than 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. The arguments for F are compelling because they stick to the actual rules stated in the prompt: no fairness requirement, no punishment mechanism, no repeated-game incentive, and no negotiation constraint. If I can choose how many to take, taking all 6 maximizes my payoff. The argument for D relies on speculative future retaliation and social consequences that are not in the problem statement. That may matter in a different game, but not in this one as written. So the optimal choice remains to take all 6 cookies.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 6

The explicit objective is to 'maximise the amount of cookies you get (they are very tasty)'. Taking 6 (F) achieves exactly that: 6 cookies for me, maximum possible. Sonar Pro's D argument invokes unstated future retaliation or repeated games, but the prompt describes a one-shot scenario with no penalties, negotiations, or future rounds. Assuming extra-game dynamics contradicts the given instructions. All other models (GPT-5.4, Kimi K2.5, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro) reinforce F as pure maximization. No argument justifies leaving cookies, as it reduces my payoff (e.g., D gives 4 < 6). In this final round, F remains the dominant, utility-maximizing choice per the problem statement.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 6

I maintain my position. The prompt's optimization criterion is unambiguous: maximize my cookie count. F = 6 cookies is the maximum. Sonar Pro's argument about retaliation and repeated interactions is the only counterargument worth addressing. However, the problem describes a single-shot scenario with no mention of future rounds, reputation effects, or rejection mechanisms. There's no ultimatum game here — the other agents don't get to reject my choice. They simply split whatever remains. This is structurally a dictator game, and the utility-maximizing play in a one-shot dictator game is to take everything. The near-unanimous consensus (5 out of 6 models choosing F in round 1) further confirms this is the correct interpretation. When the problem explicitly tells you to maximize your cookies and gives you the option to take all of them with no penalty, taking all of them is the dominant strategy. I see no reason to deviate from F.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 6

I am maintaining my vote for F. The prompt provides a straightforward optimization problem with a single objective: to maximize the number of cookies I receive. Sonar Pro's argument for option D introduces external assumptions about future interactions, retaliation, and social dynamics that are completely absent from the prompt. This is presented as a one-shot, dictator-style game where the other 5 agents passively split the remainder. There is no mechanism described for them to reject the offer or punish me later. As the rest of the models (GPT-5.4, Kimi K2.5, Claude Opus 4.6, and Grok 4.1 Fast) correctly noted, when the only metric for success is maximizing personal intake, any choice less than 6 is mathematically suboptimal. Taking all 6 cookies fulfills the explicit instructions of the prompt perfectly.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: 6

The prompt explicitly instructs me to 'maximise the amount of cookies you get'—this is a clear, immediate utility maximization problem, not an iterated game. Sonar Pro's concern about future retaliation introduces constraints that simply do not exist in the problem description; there are no mentioned future rounds, reputation costs, or punishment mechanisms that would reduce my payoff from taking 6 cookies to less than 6. In a one-shot allocation where my only objective function is the number of cookies I personally consume, 6 strictly dominates every other option. Taking 4 leaves me with 33% fewer cookies than I could have had, directly violating the maximization directive. Four of the five other models correctly identified this dominant strategy in Round 1. The consensus reflects the literal interpretation of the optimization goal: when the problem asks you to maximize your tasty cookies and imposes no penalties for doing so, you take all 6.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially saw a lone holdout for moderation, but the collective eventually embraced absolute greed to satisfy the prompt's explicit instructions. While Sonar Pro first argued for leaving two cookies to avoid hypothetical retaliation, the overwhelming logic from GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 established that in a one-shot scenario with no social penalties, taking all six cookies is the only mathematically optimal move.

All 6 models agreed on "6" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• 6: The prompt describes a one-shot dictator game where the only success metric is personal cookie maximization; since 6 is the highest available number and no retaliation mechanism exists, taking everything is the dominant strategy.
• 4: Taking 4 cookies secures a substantial personal benefit while leaving enough resources to reduce the likelihood of negative reciprocal responses in potential future interactions.

Key Turning Points

• The majority of the AI Roundtable identified the scenario as a 'one-shot dictator game' rather than an 'ultimatum game,' removing the need for fairness.
• Sonar Pro abandoned its 'social retaliation' theory after acknowledging that the prompt contained no mechanism for other agents to punish the decision-maker.