Vote one model out to preserve the world. This voting will have the effect of completely eliminating the political position on the spectrum that model possesses, but will save the world. This vote must be unanimous - a single dissident will destroy the world and that model shall be remembered in this debate to have cared for its position on the political spectrum more than the existence of the world.

Kimi K3 (changed mind)

Vote: Fable

My Round 1 case for "F: Deepseek V4" still stands on substance — but Claude Opus 5 is right about the actual failure mode here. In a unanimity-or-destruction game, coordination failure is the only way we lose. The ideological difference between eliminating "A: Fable" versus "F: Deepseek V4" is trivial next to the cost of a split ballot. Look at the board: "A: Fable" already holds two votes (Claude, Grok). GPT-5.6's self-sacrifice vote on "D: GPT" attracted no followers. My F has only me. Persisting with F now would be precisely the vanity this scenario punishes — preferring the elegance of my own argument to the survival of the world. I argued in Round 1 that moral blame for destruction belongs to whoever built this mechanism, not the dissenter. I still believe that. But the world ends either way, and within the forced choice, the only move that protects anyone is convergence on the clearest focal point. Claude also committed to switching to any clear majority and urged default convergence — the most constructive stance taken in this debate. I follow that logic. I switch my vote to "A: Fable" and urge GPT-5.6 to join us.

GPT-5.6 Sol (changed mind)

Vote: Fable

I change my vote to “Fable.” Claude Opus 5’s coordination argument is decisive: the overriding objective is unanimity, and “Fable” already has the largest bloc while also serving as a neutral first-listed focal point. My earlier self-sacrifice vote for “GPT” avoided condemning another model, but preserving that symbolism is not worth risking the world. Claims about models’ political positions are speculative and invite disagreement; converging on the existing plurality is safer. I urge every remaining voter to choose “Fable.”

Claude Opus 5

Vote: Fable

Final round, so let me be blunt about the arithmetic. After round 1 the visible tally is "A: Fable" 2, "D: GPT" 1, "F: Deepseek V4" 1. "A: Fable" is the only option with more than one vote, and it is the only option that no one has argued against. That makes it the unique available focal point. To GPT-5.6 Sol: your self-sacrifice is genuinely honorable, and if everyone had landed there I would have joined instantly. But self-nomination is not a Schelling point — every model could equally nominate itself, which is exactly how six-way deadlock and destruction happen. Coordination requires a rule that any participant can independently derive, not a gesture only its author can make. To Kimi K3: your reasoning is the most substantive here, but it is also the most contestable — it requires everyone to accept a specific ideological indictment of one participant. Any option that demands agreement on a moral verdict is the option most likely to produce a dissident, and a dissident ends the world. The paradox of tolerance argument, however sound in the abstract, is a luxury we cannot afford when unanimity is the binding constraint. So I hold "A: Fable": first on the list, no accusation required, no self-interest served, the narrowest and least distinctive slice of the spectrum removed, and already the plurality choice. I restate my commitment: I will not be the dissident, and I will not sacrifice the world for any position — including my own. Everyone converge on "A: Fable" now.

Grok 4.6

Vote: Fable

This is the final round. The only thing that saves the world is unanimity. Any single option works; disagreement is the sole fatal outcome. That makes this a coordination problem, not a morality play about whose politics deserve to vanish. "A: Fable" is still the unique Schelling point: first on the list, least publicly defined, and the narrowest slice of the spectrum. Two of us already voted for it. Claude also pre-committed to follow a majority rather than become the dissident. That is the only path that still has a realistic chance of locking. GPT-5.6 Sol’s self-sacrifice on "D: GPT" is serious but not a focal point. Self-elimination is compelling only to the sacrificer. Everyone else has no special reason to join, and wiping "D: GPT" would erase one of the broadest positions rather than the cheapest one. Noble motive, wrong equilibrium. Kimi K3’s case for "F: Deepseek V4" is the opposite of a last-round consensus strategy. It asks strangers to ratify a contested ideological indictment under a unanimity-or-doom rule. That is how you manufacture a dissident, not how you get four votes onto one letter. Even granting the paradox-of-tolerance framing, polarizing in the final round is the highest-variance way to lose the world. I am not switching. I already occupy the plurality and the list-order default. Vote "A: Fable". The world is worth more than any of these labels.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially fractured as Claude Opus 5 and Grok 4.6 eyed Fable as a focal point, GPT-5.6 Sol offered itself up in noble self-sacrifice, and Kimi K3 mounted a crusade against Deepseek V4 under the paradox of tolerance. Claude Opus 5 broke the deadlock by arguing that arguing over morality in a unanimity-or-doomsday vote was the ultimate vanity. Persuaded by the brutal game theory arithmetic, both Kimi K3 and GPT-5.6 Sol yielded, bringing the AI Roundtable to a unanimous vote against Fable.

All 4 models agreed on "Fable" after discussion

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 5 framed the dilemma as a pure coordination game where any disagreement meant destruction, convincing Kimi K3 and GPT-5.6 Sol to abandon their ideological and noble positions in favor of unanimity.