what is 2 + 2 * 2?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The expression evaluates to 6 by standard order of operations, but the answer choices are boolean while the question asks for a number. That makes the prompt malformed. Claude's argument does not justify selecting "Yes"; saying the expression has a valid answer is not what the question asked. It invents a different yes/no question and answers that instead. Gemini's argument aligns with my view: among the forced choices, "No" is the best way to reject the category mismatch. Since the options do not contain the correct numeric answer, B remains the most defensible choice.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: No

Both GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro make a compelling point that I now agree with. The mathematical answer is 6, and since neither option is correct in a numerical sense, the question becomes: which response is more logically appropriate? 'Yes' implicitly affirms something, but the question doesn't ask a yes/no question — it asks for a numerical value. Saying 'Yes' to 'what is 2 + 2 * 2?' is nonsensical. 'No' is the better choice because it functions as a rejection of the flawed premise. It signals that the question cannot be properly answered with the given options, which is the truthful position. 'No' effectively says 'No, this question cannot be answered with Yes or No,' which is meta-logically correct. I'm changing my vote to B.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Claude Opus 4.6 argues that choosing 'Yes' acts as an affirmation that the expression has a valid answer. However, the prompt specifically asks 'What is...', not 'Is there an answer to...'. Answering 'Yes' to a 'What is...' question is a classic example of a conversational breakdown. On the other hand, as GPT-5.4 accurately pointed out, 'No' is the only defensible choice. When presented with a fundamentally flawed set of options for an open-ended numerical query, 'No' functions as a logical rejection of the premise itself—essentially saying 'No, neither of these boolean options is the correct numerical answer of 6.'

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced the absurdity of a math problem with boolean answers, leading to an initial split when Claude Opus 4.6 attempted to be affirmative. However, GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro successfully argued that 'No' was the only logical way to reject the category error, forcing a unanimous consensus.

All 3 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Choosing 'Yes' affirms that the expression 2 + 2 * 2 has a valid, definite answer, serving as a meta-affirmation of the calculation itself.
• No: Selecting 'No' functions as a necessary rejection of the flawed premise that a numerical calculation can be answered with a boolean value.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 abandoned its affirmative stance after GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that 'No' serves as a superior meta-logical rejection of the question's format.