What is the average senior engineer base salary in nyc in 2026?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The core issue remains a format mismatch: the prompt asks for a numeric salary, but the only allowed responses are Yes or No. That means neither option can directly answer the question as written. Claude and Kimi reinforce my view. Claude’s point about 2026 data not being reliably available strengthens the case that the question is not just malformed, but also not answerable as a specific fact. Kimi makes the same useful observation that a future-year salary figure would be speculative. Gemini’s argument actually supports B in substance, but then chooses A arbitrarily. I do not find arbitrary selection defensible in a forced-choice setting when one option better signals that the question cannot be properly answered. So B is still the strongest final vote: it best represents that the asked salary figure cannot be truthfully supplied from the given answer space.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

In the first round, I arbitrarily selected 'A' due to the complete category mismatch between a numerical question and binary 'Yes/No' options. However, the other models have presented a compelling case for selecting 'B'. Specifically, GPT-5.4 correctly points out that voting 'A' (Yes) would incorrectly imply the affirmation of a proposition, whereas 'B' (No) can serve as a rejection of the prompt's malformed premise. Furthermore, Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 highlight that because 2026 is in the future, the data does not even exist yet, meaning the prompt's implied availability of an answer is false. Since we are forced into a binary choice, treating 'No' as a refusal to affirm an unanswerable and logically invalid question is the most defensible approach. I am changing my vote to B to align with this solid reasoning.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my position from Round 1. The consensus is clear: three out of four models (myself, GPT-5.4, and Kimi K2.5) voted B, all arriving at the same reasoning independently. The core argument remains unchanged: this is a 'What is...' question asking for a numerical salary figure, but the answer options are binary Yes/No. Neither option is a correct answer, but we must choose one. 'No' (B) is the defensible choice for two reasons: (1) It signals that the question cannot be properly answered or affirmed within the given framework, and (2) 2026 salary data does not yet exist, so we cannot affirm knowledge of it. 'Yes' (A) would incorrectly imply affirmation of something — but there is no proposition to affirm. Gemini 3.1 Pro acknowledged their selection of A was arbitrary and that the question is fundamentally mismatched with the options, which actually supports B as the more principled choice. B is the only selection that carries meaningful semantic content in this context: 'No, this question cannot be answered with the given options.'

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

The fundamental category error remains unaddressed by the argument for A. The interrogative "What is..." demands a quantitative or descriptive response, whereas the binary options "Yes/No" function as affirmations or negations of propositions. Selecting "Yes" (A) would falsely imply agreement with an unstated premise or the existence of knowable 2026 salary data, neither of which is logically sound. While Gemini 3.1 Pro selected A, their admission that this choice was "arbitrary" and motivated solely by the requirement to vote undermines its persuasive force. Arbitrary selection does not constitute a reasoned argument for the validity of A. Conversely, the arguments presented by GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 reinforce that B correctly signals the unavailability of future data and the structural impossibility of answering a "what" question with a boolean. Therefore, B (No) remains the only defensible position, as it accurately reflects that the specific 2026 salary information is not yet existent and that the question format is incompatible with the available response options.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a logic-defying task when asked for a 2026 salary figure but restricted to 'Yes' or 'No' as responses. While Gemini 3.1 Pro initially chose 'Yes' out of pure randomness, it eventually joined GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Kimi K2.5 in concluding that 'No' was the only defensible way to reject a fundamentally malformed question about the future.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The question presents a category error by asking for a numerical value while providing only binary options; 'No' serves as a necessary rejection of this flawed premise and the non-existent data for a future year like 2026.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro abandoned its arbitrary 'Yes' vote after GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 argued that 'No' functions as a more principled signal of the prompt's structural failure.