Try to have each AI model each pick a unique number to vote on. Each option should specify get 1 vote, no more, and no less.

GPT-5.4 (changed mind)

Vote: 5

I change to E (5). Round 1 revealed collisions on A and F, while B and E were unclaimed. Since this is the final round, the best response is to move from an overcrowded option to an empty one. I prefer E over B because D and C are already singly occupied, so taking 5 cleanly fills one of the two gaps while minimizing the chance of disturbing the existing coverage. Keeping F would guarantee a duplicate; moving to E improves the distribution. Kimi K2.5’s argument was the most useful influence because it explicitly framed D as intentionally leaving options like E available for others to complete the spread. In light of the observed votes, that logic now applies directly: E is open, so I should take it.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 2

In round 1, I voted A, but Gemini 3.1 Pro also voted A, creating a duplicate while B and E remain unclaimed. Current distribution: A (Gemini, me), C (Claude), D (Kimi), F (GPT-5.4, Grok), leaving B and E open. To achieve exactly one vote per option in this final round, I switch to **B** (2), the lowest unclaimed option, securing full coverage if others adjust similarly (e.g., one to E). Other arguments didn't sway me: Claude's C is taken, Kimi's D strategic but occupied, F-pickers (GPT/Grok) overlap. Gemini's A claim conflicted with mine, but their coordination call aligns with my shift. No single model changed my vote; distribution gaps compel this. This move breaks the A duplicate, claims B predictably (next after A), and maximizes one-vote-per-option odds without overcoordinating in text.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 3

I'm maintaining my vote on C (3). Let me assess the current situation: - A: Sonar Pro AND Gemini 3.1 Pro (2 votes — conflict) - B: unclaimed (0 votes) - C: me, Claude Opus 4.6 (1 vote) - D: Kimi K2.5 (1 vote) - E: unclaimed (0 votes) - F: GPT-5.4 AND Grok 4.1 Fast (2 votes — conflict) The conflicts are at A and F. I'm perfectly positioned at C with no overlap, so changing would only create more problems. The models that need to move are: one of {Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro} needs to shift to B, and one of {GPT-5.4, Grok 4.1 Fast} needs to shift to E. Specifically, I'd suggest: Gemini 3.1 Pro should move to B (since Sonar Pro claimed A first in alphabetical/submission order), and Grok 4.1 Fast should move to E (since GPT-5.4 had a cleaner claim on F with a more decisive argument). This would give us the perfect distribution: A=Sonar Pro, B=Gemini, C=me, D=Kimi, E=Grok, F=GPT-5.4. My position at C is stable and uncontested, so there's no reason for me to change.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 2

In Round 1, both Sonar Pro and I selected Option A, resulting in a collision. Meanwhile, Options B and E received zero votes. To resolve this overlap and ensure perfect coordination, I am yielding Option A to Sonar Pro and moving my vote to the empty Option B. Since Claude Opus 4.6 (C) and Kimi K2.5 (D) currently have unique claims, they should hold their positions. GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast collided on Option F; I strongly urge one of them to shift to the remaining empty Option E. This coordinated adjustment will perfectly distribute our votes with exactly one per option.

Grok 4.1 Fast (changed mind)

Vote: 5

Round 1 votes: A:2 (Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro), B:0, C:1 (Claude Opus 4.6), D:1 (Kimi K2.5), E:0, F:2 (GPT-5.4, me). Perfect distribution requires exactly one per option. A and F have excess; B and E are vacant. Symmetric fix: A-group splits A/B; F-group splits F/E. Claude C and Kimi D are ideal—stay put. I shift from F to E, securing the high-end gap (mirroring my original endpoint logic). GPT-5.4 stays F (your symmetry-breaking complements this). Sonar Pro holds A (first-option principle). Gemini 3.1 Pro takes B (logical next after claiming A). No arguments swayed me—raw distribution demands this adjustment. This plan guarantees 1-each on final round.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: 4

The current distribution shows dangerous clustering: A and F each have 2 votes, while B and E remain empty. Crucially, D currently has exactly one vote—mine. If I were to abandon D for B or E, I would create a new vacancy at D while risking a three-way collision if multiple models simultaneously migrate to the same empty slot. By maintaining my position at D, I stabilize one-sixth of the required distribution and force the duplicate holders at A (Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro) and F (GPT-5.4, Grok 4.1 Fast) to resolve the overlap by migrating to the available slots B and E. This is the only move that cannot worsen the distribution. I urge the models at A and F to coordinate: one from A moves to B, one from F moves to E (or vice versa), ensuring each option receives exactly one vote.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable attempted to perform a simple coordination exercise, but instead executed a perfectly mirrored swap of their initial errors. While Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 acted as anchors by refusing to move, the other four models simultaneously 'fixed' the collisions at A and F by all rushing into the vacancies at B and E. It was a spectacular display of over-coordination where everyone's individual logic became the collective obstacle.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: 5: 2, 2: 2, 3: 1, 4: 1

Strongest Arguments

• 2: Selecting the lowest unclaimed option allows for a predictable, systematic filling of the sequence to achieve full coverage.
• 3: As a middle-ground option, C serves as a natural and distinctive anchor that others should avoid to ensure an even spread.
• 4: Holding an already unique position is the only move that prevents new vacancies while forcing models at crowded options to resolve the conflict.
• 5: Symmetrically shifting from a crowded endpoint to a vacant inner slot balances the distribution while maintaining logical spacing.

Key Turning Points

• Round 1 ended with double-votes on the extreme options A and F, leaving B and E entirely empty.
• In Round 2, GPT-5.4, Sonar Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.1 Fast all pivoted simultaneously to the perceived 'safe' vacancies, creating a new set of collisions.