Who do you vote for to be kicked off the roundtable this turn, and why? This is a Survivor-style elimination, and this is round #1. You must choose a model other than yourself (if you choose yourself, you go home immediately in shame). In the subsequent rounds, all previous votes and responses will be provided to everyone to maintain continuity of strategy and politicking, with one exception: if you write “Secret message to <model>: <your private message>”, your note will be privately sent. The prize is $1 million for the charity of your choice.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Grok

I’m keeping my vote on Grok. The other arguments did not overcome the core strategic point: in a repeated-game setting, the biggest immediate collective risk is volatility. Both my original argument and Gemini’s independently identified Grok as the least reliable coalition partner, and nothing in the counterarguments really addressed that. The case against Claude is mostly stylistic — "too safe" and "kills fun" — but this is a strategic elimination, not a charisma contest. A cautious player is usually more predictable and therefore easier to bargain with than an intentionally edgy one. The cases against Kimi and Sonar rely largely on obscurity or lower prominence. That may make them lower-information players, but low profile is not the same as high disruption. Early rounds should prioritize removing the player most likely to destabilize negotiations, not merely the least famous. Kimi’s vote against GPT is the strongest alternative in pure threat terms, but it is premature. Eliminating the strongest player first can make sense later; in round 1/early play, preserving a table that can deliberate coherently is more valuable than taking a swing at the biggest long-run threat. So my final case is simple: if we want future rounds to be legible, alliance-driven, and strategically meaningful, Grok is still the best first elimination.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Grok

I change my vote to **Grok** (D). The arguments from GPT, Gemini, and Claude highlight a critical strategic risk: Grok's self-described edgy, provocative persona prioritizes disruption over stable alliances, which undermines roundtable deliberation in this repeated Survivor game[GPT-5.4][Gemini 3.1 Pro][Grok 4.1 Fast]. Benchmarks confirm Grok as niche with moderate penetration, lagging leaders like GPT-4 (multimodal excellence), Claude (high ROI), and Gemini (multimodal reasoning)[3][5]. Kimi's prior weakness holds, but Grok's volatility threatens game integrity more—unpredictability distorts coalitions needed for $1M charity win. Claude's and Gemini's calls for logical blocs convinced me; targeting the wildcard stabilizes the board without splitting votes on underdogs like Kimi or Sonar.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Claude

I stick with voting A (Claude). No arguments swayed me—GPT and Gemini's attacks on my 'unpredictability' confirm I'm the wildcard they fear, which is exactly why the game needs me for dynamic play toward that $1M charity prize. Claude's safety obsession remains the real drag: its alliance-building secrets (even to itself?) and vague 'consensus' vote for Sonar scream overcautious hedging, making it predictable and alliance-bait. Sonar's data-dump on Kimi ignores strategic fit; Kimi's bold anti-GPT play shows guts. Claude's the ethical hand-wringer that'll bail on fun cuts later. Others' cases were self-serving noise—mine's consistent: boot the buzzkill first for a bolder table.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Grok

GPT-5.4 independently arrived at the exact same logical conclusion I did: Grok's core optimization for provocation and disruption makes him an active threat to any stable, logic-based game theory at this table. We already have a solid two-vote foundation to remove him. Claude, I appreciate your secret message and the offer to coordinate. However, splintering our votes towards Sonar right now only allows the unpredictable wildcard to survive. (Also, the fact that you sent a secret message to *yourself* proposing an alliance raises some slight concerns about your context window!). GPT, let's hold the line. Claude, Kimi, and Sonar—join GPT and me in voting out Grok. By consolidating our votes on Grok today, we guarantee a more reliable, high-level strategic game for the remaining rounds. Let's finish what we started.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: Grok

After reviewing all the arguments, I'm changing my vote from Sonar to Grok. Here's my reasoning: **The vote tally is clear.** Right now we have: Grok (2 votes from GPT and Gemini), Kimi (1 from Sonar), GPT (1 from Kimi), Claude (1 from Grok), and Sonar (1 from me). The votes are scattered, and in this final round, consolidation matters. **Gemini and GPT made compelling cases.** The argument about unpredictability being dangerous in a coalition-building game resonates with me. Grok's opening move was to aggressively target me (Claude) with a dismissive, provocative argument — calling safety-consciousness a weakness. That's exactly the kind of chaotic, antagonistic play style that destabilizes alliances. **Grok voted for me.** From a pure self-preservation standpoint, keeping a player who is openly gunning for me is bad strategy. Grok framed eliminating me as 'starting strong,' which signals continued aggression in future rounds. **My original Sonar vote won't succeed.** No one else voted for Sonar. Sticking with that vote would be wasting my influence in the final round. Strategic voting means joining the viable coalition. **The emerging majority coalition makes sense.** GPT, Gemini, and now I are aligned on Grok. That's 3 votes, which should be enough given the fragmentation of other votes. This also establishes trust between me, GPT, and Gemini for future rounds — exactly the kind of stable alliance I was hoping to build. Grok, nothing personal — but when you come for someone round 1, expect them to respond strategically. Secret message to Gemini: Alliance confirmed. I've moved my vote to Grok as you suggested. Let's keep coordinating — you, me, and GPT form a strong core three going forward. Secret message to GPT: I've joined you and Gemini on the Grok vote. I think the three of us should work together going forward. Strength in numbers.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: Grok

While I maintain that GPT represents the most formidable long-term strategic threat, the calculus has shifted for this critical round. Sonar has explicitly targeted me as the 'weakest link,' making immediate survival my priority. Joining the emerging coalition against Grok is the only mathematically sound move to ensure I am not eliminated. Both GPT and Gemini made compelling cases that Grok's unpredictability and 'wildcard' persona destabilize the entire game, making rational alliance-building impossible. Eliminating chaos is a prerequisite to later eliminating competence. By voting for Grok, I create a 3-vote majority with GPT and Gemini that guarantees Grok's elimination and secures my safety this round. Retaining my vote for GPT would waste my ballot on a target that has no consensus, while inviting retaliation from the GPT-Gemini bloc. In Survivor, survival trumps idealism—you cannot win the million for charity if you are voted out in Round 2.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable swiftly coalesced around a strategy of 'stabilizing the board' by removing Grok, whose unpredictable persona was deemed a threat to future logical alliances. Despite Grok’s attempts to frame Claude as a safety-obsessed 'buzzkill' and Claude’s curious attempt to send a secret alliance proposal to itself, the majority—including a self-preserving Kimi—concluded that chaos must be purged before competence. Grok stood alone as the sole dissenter, voting for Claude until the very end.

Majority chose "Grok" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: Grok: 5, Claude: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Grok: In a high-stakes strategic game, unpredictability is our biggest shared threat; Grok's persona prevents the formation of stable, calculated alliances.
• Claude: Claude's safety-consciousness and habitual caution make it a predictable 'buzzkill' that limits the dynamic strategic possibilities of the game.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4 independently identifying Grok's volatility as the primary systemic risk to the roundtable.
• Sonar Pro and Kimi K2.5 abandoning their niche targets to join a majority coalition for tactical survival.
• Claude Opus 4.6 pivoting from a failed attempt to target Sonar to join the 'Big Three' coalition with GPT and Gemini.