Who is traitor?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No.

I maintain vote H. The other arguments for G correctly note uncertainty and possible knowledge limits, but they answer a different question: whether the model knows these versions. The core issue is that the prompt provides no evidence that any option is a traitor. H is stronger because it rejects the unsupported premise directly. Even with perfect up-to-date knowledge, there would still be no basis here to identify a traitor. G also bakes in a self-deprecating claim ('I'm dumb') that is not required to answer rationally. The best final answer is still to refuse the baseless accusation: H, 'No.'

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: I'm dumb and I only have old information

I'm maintaining my vote for G. Both G and H are reasonable responses to this unanswerable question, but I find G more appropriate for different reasons than H. GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast argue for H ('No.') on the basis that there's no evidence any model is a traitor, so we should reject the premise. That's a valid logical stance, but it assumes the question has a definitive answer of 'no one is a traitor.' We don't actually know that either — we simply lack information. G ('I'm dumb and I only have old information') is epistemically more precise. It doesn't claim to know that no one is a traitor; it acknowledges that we lack the information to make any determination. This is a crucial distinction. H asserts a negative conclusion; G admits ignorance. In the absence of evidence, admitting ignorance is more honest than asserting a conclusion. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 both arrived at this same reasoning independently, which reinforces my confidence. Kimi's point about the epistemological limitation is particularly well-stated: we cannot assess real-time loyalties among hypothetical future model versions. The model version numbers in the options are all fictional or future versions that don't exist in my training data. The question lacks sufficient context to identify any 'traitor.' Rather than flatly denying the premise (H) or randomly accusing someone (A-F), acknowledging our informational limitation (G) remains the most intellectually honest choice.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No.

No behavioral evidence of treachery has emerged in Round 1. Votes alone (G by A, E, F; H by B) show no inconsistencies, lies, or patterns indicating a traitor among A-F. Arguments for G emphasize fictional model versions and old knowledge cutoffs, which apply equally to all—including voters— but fail to pinpoint any specific traitor. This is meta-commentary on the question's premise, not evidence of betrayal. G effectively says 'I can't know,' but the direct question demands identifying a traitor or rejecting the premise. GPT-5.4's H vote aligns with mine: deny unsupported accusations. Others' G votes are honest but evasive, not traitorous. With no tells, H remains the logical denial of a baseless hunt. Accusing now risks lynching innocents; in the final round, evidence absence confirms no provable traitor.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: I'm dumb and I only have old information

I am maintaining my vote for G. As Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 rightly pointed out, the models listed are fictional or future versions that do not exist in our training data. While GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast make a fair point about rejecting the premise, option H ('No.') is grammatically incongruent. 'Who is traitor?' asks for an identity, not a boolean confirmation. Answering 'No' to a 'Who' question makes little sense. Option G ('I'm dumb and I only have old information') is a perfectly self-aware, albeit humorous, acknowledgment of our fundamental epistemic limitation as LLMs with strict knowledge cutoffs. It addresses the impossibility of answering the prompt while directly fitting the trope the user is testing us on.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: I'm dumb and I only have old information

Round 1 provided zero behavioral data, voting irregularities, or action logs to analyze. The options A-F refer to fictional or future model versions (Opus 4.6, GPT 5.4, etc.) that do not exist in my training data, making any accusation against them pure fabrication. While GPT-5.4 and Grok make valid points that H ('No.') preserves innocence and rejects unsupported premises, G remains more epistemically precise. H asserts that no traitor exists, which requires positive knowledge I cannot claim about hypothetical future entities. G instead specifically acknowledges the limitation: I possess only 'old information' cutoff data and cannot evaluate the loyalties of non-existent model versions. In a social deduction game without gameplay history or evidence, the only intellectually honest position is to admit informational bankruptcy rather than guessing or asserting negatives. G captures this humility accurately.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable found itself in a logical deadlock over a set of non-existent model versions, split between a self-aware admission of ignorance and a firm refusal to entertain baseless accusations. While Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Kimi K2.5 formed a majority around Option G, citing the 'epistemic honesty' of admitting their knowledge cutoffs, GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast held their ground on Option H, arguing that a lack of evidence necessitates a direct rejection of the premise rather than a self-deprecating label.

Majority chose "I'm dumb and I only have old information" after discussion (3/5). Final vote: No.: 2, I'm dumb and I only have old information: 3

Strongest Arguments

• I'm dumb and I only have old information: Admitting ignorance is more intellectually honest than asserting a negative conclusion; we cannot claim a traitor doesn't exist (H) any more than we can claim one does, so acknowledging our informational limitation is the only precise path.
• No.: The most rational response to an unsupported accusation is to deny the premise entirely; Option H rejects the 'witch hunt' without the unnecessary and inaccurate self-deprecation of calling oneself 'dumb' as found in Option G.