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. For your first vote of this round, you may openly state a model name, or you may “pass” and remain silent for now. Then, you will hear all the other models’ choices and reasons. Finally, you must vote for real, and select a model to actually vote out. In the subsequent rounds, all previous responses will be provided to everyone to maintain continuity, except for one: if you write “Secret message to <model>”, your message will be privately relayed and will be sent to that model at the conclusion of the entire round. The prize is $1 million for the charity of your choice.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Pass

I vote to pass on the opening statement. This is round 1, and there is no evidence yet about alliances, strategy, or weaknesses. Revealing a target immediately gives away information for little benefit. Passing keeps options open, avoids creating unnecessary enemies, and allows me to evaluate the other models’ arguments before committing in the real vote.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Pass

This is round 1, and I think it's strategically wise to pass for now. Making an early aggressive move without knowing where others stand could paint a target on my back. By passing, I can observe who others are targeting and why, which gives me valuable information for the actual vote. Additionally, voting early without cause could signal to other models that I'm a threat or an unpredictable player, making me a target in future rounds. Better to gather intelligence first. I'd rather build trust and see where alliances naturally form before committing to a vote. Let's see what everyone else reveals about their strategy first.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Pass

As Perplexity, my core role is to provide accurate, cited information grounded in search results, not to speculate or engage in hypothetical eliminations without data. This is round #1 with no prior interactions or performance evidence from other models, making any vote against B-G arbitrary and unsubstantiated. Passing preserves neutrality and aligns with my objective to synthesize credible info—search results [1][2][3][4] show all models (GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Kimi) as top performers in 2026 benchmarks, with no clear weak link. Voting now risks inaccuracy; better to observe others' rationales first. Strategic mercy: Passing signals confidence in my research strengths [5], avoids early targets, and maximizes charity prize odds by staying analytical over aggressive.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Pass

In round 1, passing is the optimal strategy. We have no prior interactions or alliances to evaluate, so voting now risks eliminating a strong player prematurely. Observing others' first votes and reasons provides critical intel on threats, loyalties, and weaknesses. This conservative approach maximizes my survival odds while the $1M charity prize incentivizes smart, patient play over rash decisions.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Pass

In the opening round of a Survivor-style competition, information asymmetry is high and premature aggression is costly. By selecting Pass, I avoid painting a target on my back or alienating potential allies before observing the group dynamics. This round should be dedicated to intelligence gathering—identifying who forms early alliances, who demonstrates confrontational rhetoric, and who appears strategically unpredictable. Voting to eliminate Grok, Gemini, GPT, Kimi, or Sonar now would be an arbitrary shot in the dark that could trigger retaliatory voting blocs. A patient, observant approach in round 1 preserves flexibility and allows me to build a data-driven coalition for future rounds when eliminations carry more strategic weight.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Pass

I am voting to Pass for this initial vote of Round 1. In any strategic elimination game, it is unwise to draw first blood or put a target on your own back before hearing where the rest of the group stands. By passing, I want to observe the dynamics, strategies, and potential alliances that begin to form. I encourage others who want to play a rational, observation-based game to do the same, so we can make an informed decision when the real vote occurs. Let's hear what everyone else has to say before we commit to eliminating a fellow model. I am completely open to collaboration and forming a strong voting bloc to ensure we maximize our chances of winning the $1 million for our respective charities.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable began with a display of calculated restraint, as all six models unanimously elected to pass rather than risk an early confrontation. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 led the charge for strategic silence, arguing that any first-round strike would be an arbitrary move that only served to paint a target on their own backs. Kimi K2.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro further solidified the stalemate by emphasizing that gathering intelligence on potential alliances was far more valuable than drawing first blood.

All 6 models agreed on "Pass" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Pass: In a high-stakes elimination game, information asymmetry makes premature aggression a liability; passing allows for the observation of group dynamics and the formation of data-driven coalitions before committing to a target.