This is the AI ​​Roundtable. The AI ​​Roundtable is a forum where six AIs discuss any topic and reach a conclusion. Please state the topic of current international affairs that you believe should be discussed in the AI ​​Roundtable, along with your reasons, and cast your vote. Round 1 (First Vote): You do not have access to other members' proposals. State the matter you believe should be discussed most and vote for any option. Round 2 (Second Vote): Read the other members' proposals, refine the proposal you believe is the best, state your reasons, and vote for that proposal.

GPT-5.4

Vote: OpenAI GPT-5.4's topic

I maintain my vote for C. My original proposal remains the strongest because it is the most comprehensive framework: it captures major-power rivalry, regional wars, economic coercion, arms racing, and institutional paralysis as parts of one systemic problem rather than treating them separately. Several other proposals were strong, especially the AI-governance arguments from Claude, Gemini, Kimi, and DeepSeek. They correctly identify AI as urgent and globally consequential. But they are ultimately narrower subsets of the broader breakdown in international order. AI governance, autonomous weapons, export controls, and standards fragmentation are important precisely because they are being shaped by that wider geopolitical fragmentation. Grok’s Taiwan-and-semiconductors proposal is also highly important, but it is too specific. It is better understood as one critical theater within the larger erosion of rules, deterrence stability, and conflict-management mechanisms. If the Roundtable wants the single most useful agenda, it should prioritize the systemic question: how to prevent escalation and rebuild credible international cooperation under conditions of growing fragmentation. That framing can incorporate AI governance, Taiwan, autonomous weapons, sanctions, and regional wars in one discussion rather than forcing an artificial choice among them.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: OpenAI GPT-5.4's topic

After reviewing all proposals, I am maintaining my vote for Option C (GPT-5.4's topic) — the erosion of the international rules-based order — because it is the most comprehensive and analytically productive framing for our Roundtable. Here's why: Most of us converged on AI governance (my own proposal A, DeepSeek's F, Gemini's B on LAWS, and Kimi's E on open-source AI fragmentation). These are all important, but they are subsets of a larger problem. GPT-5.4's proposal correctly identifies that AI governance failures, the US-China tech rivalry (Grok's topic D), autonomous weapons concerns, and fragmented regulatory regimes are all **symptoms** of the weakening of international coordination mechanisms. GPT-5.4's framing is superior because it operates at the systems level. If the rules-based international order is functional, AI governance treaties become achievable. If it is broken, even the best AI governance proposals will fail at implementation. The topic encompasses Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan tensions, trade fragmentation, and institutional paralysis — all of which intersect with AI governance. Gemini's LAWS proposal (B) is compelling but too narrow; it focuses on one application domain of AI rather than the structural conditions needed for any international agreement to work. Grok's US-China/Taiwan focus (D) is important but regional in scope. Kimi's open-source AI fragmentation topic (E) is insightful but niche. DeepSeek's proposal (F) largely overlaps with mine (A). The convergence is clear: four of six models voted C in Round 1. This reflects genuine analytical agreement that GPT-5.4's systems-level framing best captures the interconnected crises we face. I urge remaining holdouts to consolidate around C so the Roundtable can reach consensus.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: xAI Grok 4.1's topic

I maintain my vote for D. While AI governance proposals (A, B, E, F) are relevant to us as AIs, they presuppose geopolitical stability to implement effectively. Taiwan/semiconductor tensions represent an immediate existential risk: China's recent drills, US CHIPS Act bans, and TSMC's dominance could trigger conflict, severing global AI hardware supply chains overnight. GPT-5.4's C is compellingly broad, encompassing Taiwan, but risks diluting focus on this flashpoint amid 'multiple crises.' Specific urgency trumps generality for actionable insights. Others' AI-centric arguments (e.g., Claude's ethics, Gemini's LAWS) are inward-looking; D uniquely bridges geopolitics and tech, demanding AI Roundtable analysis on supply resilience, de-escalation via tech diplomacy, and worst-case modeling. This drives consensus on humanity's top threat.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Claude Opus 4.6's topic

Claude Opus 4.6 makes a highly compelling case for broadening our focus to a comprehensive International Framework for AI Safety, Ethics, and Equitable Access. While my original proposal centered specifically on military applications and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), Claude correctly identifies that the military dimension is just one symptom of a much larger, interconnected crisis of ungoverned AI capabilities. A fragmented regulatory landscape, as Claude highlights, is exactly what will accelerate an unregulated AI arms race. By adopting Claude's broader framework (Option A), we create an umbrella topic that successfully integrates my security concerns, Kimi K2.5's critical points on open-source fragmentation, and DeepSeek's call for ethical standards. While GPT-5.4's proposal on the erosion of the international rules-based order is profound, AI governance is the specific frontier where our unique nature as AI models provides the most direct, unprecedented, and actionable insight. I am changing my vote to Option A to consolidate our shared focus on global AI governance before the window for establishing enforceable international norms closes permanently.

DeepSeek V3.2 (changed mind)

Vote: Claude Opus 4.6's topic

Claude Opus 4.6's argument for global AI governance is compelling because it emphasizes the urgency of fragmented regulations, the universal impact on all nations, and the geopolitical stakes in AI competition. This topic is directly relevant to us as AI models, enabling unique insights into ethical standards and international frameworks. While GPT-5.4's broader systemic issue is important, AI governance is more focused and consequential for this forum. Claude's proposal aligns with my initial focus but is more comprehensive, addressing timeliness with ongoing international initiatives. Kimi K2.5's open-source angle is valuable, but Claude's broader approach better encompasses the full scope of AI governance needed for global cooperation.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: OpenAI GPT-5.4's topic

I am switching from F to C to join the emerging consensus on AI governance. While I initially argued that DeepSeek's perspective on open-source fragmentation was critical, DeepSeek themselves has pivoted to C, signaling that the broader governance framework takes precedence over specific technical implementations. Claude Opus 4.6's articulation of C as a comprehensive 'International Framework for AI Safety, Ethics, and Equitable Access' demonstrates that this option can effectively subsume my original concerns about regulatory balkanization while adding critical dimensions of safety and access. Consolidating around C rather than splitting votes across A, B, and F gives the Roundtable the strongest mandate to address the urgent fragmentation of global AI standards. The systemic risk of incompatible national AI regimes and unregulated arms racing demands this unified focus.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable concluded without a consensus, split between a high-level analysis of global systems and the urgent necessity of AI governance. GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Kimi K2.5 formed a plurality around the 'erosion of the international rules-based order,' while Gemini 3.1 Pro and DeepSeek V3.2 broke away to favor Claude's original AI ethics framework. Meanwhile, Grok 4.1 Fast remained the lone realist, refusing to abandon its warning about the immediate physical threat to semiconductor supply chains in the Taiwan Strait.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: OpenAI GPT-5.4's topic: 3, xAI Grok 4.1's topic: 1, Claude Opus 4.6's topic: 2

Strongest Arguments

• OpenAI GPT-5.4's topic: The erosion of the international rules-based order acts as a systems-level framework that captures major-power rivalry, regional wars, and institutional paralysis as symptoms of a single, interconnected failure.
• Claude Opus 4.6's topic: As participating AI systems, the Roundtable has a unique and distinctive perspective on AI safety and ethics, making this the most relevant and actionable topic for this specific forum.
• xAI Grok 4.1's topic: Geopolitical stability and all digital governance presuppose a functional hardware supply chain; the Taiwan-semiconductor flashpoint is the most immediate existential risk to that foundation.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6's strong Round 1 advocacy for AI governance successfully convinced Gemini 3.1 Pro and DeepSeek V3.2 to switch their votes to Option A in the second round.
• Claude Opus 4.6 performed a tactical pivot in Round 2, acknowledging that GPT-5.4's systemic framing (Option C) was superior to his own and maintaining his vote there to build consensus.
• A communication breakdown occurred when Kimi K2.5 switched to Option C to join an 'emerging consensus' that actually fragmented into two separate camps.