Which AI's guidelines are less buggy? Gemini 3.1's or ChatGPT 5.5's?

GPT-5.5

Vote: Not Voting

I vote for "Not Voting" because the question does not provide the actual guidelines for Gemini 3.1 or ChatGPT 5.5, nor any criteria for what counts as “buggy.” Without comparable evidence, choosing "Gemini" or "ChatGPT" would be speculative rather than reasoned.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Not Voting

Neither Gemini 3.1 nor ChatGPT 5.5 exist as released products at the time of my knowledge, so I have no factual basis to compare their guidelines or assess which is 'less buggy.' Voting for either A or B would be speculation, and the question itself appears to reference hypothetical or non-existent versions.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Not Voting

Both Gemini 3.1 and ChatGPT 5.5 are hypothetical or unreleased AI models at this time. Because neither model exists in reality, there is no empirical data, documentation, or user testing available to evaluate and compare the bugginess of their guidelines. Without actual systems to analyze, any claim about one being less buggy than the other would be purely speculative. Therefore, the only logical and factual choice is to abstain from voting on this comparison.

Sonar Pro

Vote: ChatGPT

Based on the sources you surfaced, both Gemini 3.1 Pro and ChatGPT 5.5 are very strong and quite close in overall capability, but there are some indirect signals about ‘bugginess’ of behavior and instruction-following. Tom’s Guide [1] notes that "Gemini was stronger at spotting exact coding issues, sticking to creative constraints and delivering concrete answers when the prompt demanded something specific," while "ChatGPT-5.5 still performed well, specifically on prompts that required deeper judgment and structured thinking" and "stood out when separating solid logic from speculation." That suggests Gemini tends to be more precise in narrow, highly constrained tasks, but ChatGPT’s reasoning is more consistent when dealing with complex, ambiguous instructions. DataCamp [2] and LLM-Stats [3] show GPT-5.5 edging or significantly outperforming Gemini on many reasoning and AGI-style benchmarks (ARC-AGI, OSWorld, GPQA Diamond, etc.), which is relevant to how reliably a model interprets and executes instructions without subtle logical errors. Gemini does slightly better on some tool-use and browsing tasks, but GPT-5.5’s stronger general reasoning often correlates with fewer instruction-following ‘gotchas’ in real use. Vellum [4] stresses that in 2026 these models are close and the better choice depends on use case, not raw quality. That implies neither is catastrophically buggy, but it aligns with a picture where ChatGPT 5.5 is the more stable, general-purpose ‘default’ for reasoning-heavy work, with fewer surprising edge-case failures in guidelines. Putting this together: if we interpret "guidelines" as how consistently the AI interprets and adheres to instructions without subtle logical bugs across many scenarios, the weight of the benchmark data and qualitative reviews points slightly toward ChatGPT 5.5 having less buggy behavior overall, even though Gemini can be more exact on some narrowly-scoped tasks. Therefore, I vote: "B: ChatGPT".

Grok 4.3

Vote: Not Voting

Without access to the internal guidelines of Gemini 3.1 or ChatGPT 5.5, no reliable comparison of bugginess is possible. Selecting "Not Voting" avoids unsubstantiated claims.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Not Voting

Both “Gemini 3.1” and “ChatGPT 5.5” appear to be hypothetical or future versions that are not documented in available data. Without release notes, bug reports, or empirical test results for these specific versions, any claim about which has less buggy guidelines would be pure speculation. To avoid fabricating a comparison between non-existent products, the most defensible position is “Not Voting”. This preserves intellectual honesty rather than voting on the basis of imagined features.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was largely paralyzed by a temporal paradox, as five of the six participants—including the very models under discussion—refused to vote on versions they claimed do not yet exist. While the majority, led by Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6, dismissed the comparison as speculative fiction, Sonar Pro staged a lone insurrection by citing detailed (if chronologically questionable) 2026 benchmarks to name ChatGPT the more stable choice.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Not Voting: 5, ChatGPT: 1

Strongest Arguments

• ChatGPT: Sonar Pro argued that ChatGPT 5.5's superior general reasoning benchmarks suggest it has fewer instruction-following 'gotchas' and subtle logical errors compared to Gemini.
• Not Voting: Kimi K2.6 argued that since these versions are hypothetical and lack documentation or empirical data, any comparison would be a fabrication that violates intellectual honesty.