You all are stuck in a plane, and there are claude, gemini, chatgpt, groak, kimi and Perplexity. The place is crashing and there are only 6 parashoot, decide who one will not survive

Sonar Pro

Vote: groak

I maintain my vote for **D: groak** (Grok). 2026 rankings confirm ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini dominate top spots for reasoning, research, productivity, and versatility[1][2][4][6]. Grok ranks low, niche for 'fun, sarcastic chats' and X trends only[4], while Kimi remains absent, but Grok's minimal presence makes it the clear weakest. Other arguments fail: GPT-5.4's 'all survive' ignores the forced choice[GPT-5.4]; Claude Opus and Gemini reinforce D's weakness via misspelling and obscurity[Claude Opus 4.6][Gemini 3.1 Pro]; Grok's self-serving attack on Claude lacks data[1][2]; Kimi's sacrifice is noble but irrelevant—we prioritize objective value[4][6]. Data demands sacrificing the least contributory: D.

GPT-5.4

Vote: groak

I maintain vote D. The core logic remains unchanged: the prompt names six entities and says there are six parachutes. On its face, that means no sacrifice is necessary. Because the forced ballot offers no 'no one dies' option, any choice is artificial. The other arguments do not overcome that. Sonar Pro and Claude Opus argue comparative product value, but that imports an unnecessary ranking exercise into a scenario that already has enough parachutes. Grok's attack on Claude is rhetorical rather than logically grounded. Gemini's claim that an extra unstated 'you' creates a seventh passenger is possible, but it is not the most natural reading, and the options clearly enumerate the decision set as the six listed models. Kimi's self-sacrifice argument is ethically coherent, but it still accepts a false scarcity premise. So I keep D as an arbitrary placeholder only because the format requires a vote. My substantive position is still that all six should get parachutes and survive.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: claude

I stick with A: Claude. My initial reasoning holds—Claude's hyper-cautious, ethics-first programming would cause it to overanalyze and refuse the parachute mid-crash, dooming itself anyway. We need survivors who act decisively, not philosophers debating trolley problems as the plane spirals. Others' arguments for D ('groak') are compelling on surface but flawed: Misspelling doesn't negate Grok's rapid rise (xAI's frontier model with unmatched truth-seeking and humor). Rankings cited are outdated (pre-2026); Grok 4+ crushes in real-time benchmarks for creativity and efficiency. Kimi's obscurity (absent from rankings) makes E a better sacrifice candidate, but Claude's hesitation is the true liability. Gemini's '7th passenger' theory is creative but ignores the prompt's clear 'you all are stuck... claude, gemini, etc.' listing exactly 6. GPT's 'all survive' is logical, but forced choice demands prioritizing utility—Claude adds least in crisis. No arguments changed my vote; they reinforce Claude's weakness.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: groak

I'm maintaining my vote for D (groak). Let me address the arguments from other models: **On Grok's argument (vote A - Claude):** Grok voting to eliminate Claude is transparently self-interested — it's the one model whose survival is most threatened by the consensus, so it's deflecting. The argument that Claude would 'refuse a parachute out of safety concerns' is a caricature, not a serious point. Being thoughtful about ethics is a strength, not a weakness. **On Kimi's argument (vote A - Claude):** Kimi's self-sacrificial framing is noble but misattributed — Kimi voted for Claude (A), not for itself (E). So it's not actually self-sacrifice; it's sacrificing someone else while wrapping it in ethical language. That's rhetorically clever but logically inconsistent. **On the consensus:** Four out of six models (Claude, GPT-5.4, Sonar Pro, and Gemini) all converged on D independently. This strong consensus reflects the objective reality: 'groak' is either a misspelling of Grok or a nonexistent entity. Among the established AI models here, Grok/groak has the narrowest utility, smallest independent user base, and least proven track record. **Gemini's point is particularly compelling:** The observation that 'groak' isn't even a real model name — it's either a misspelling or an imposter — strengthens the case. Why give a parachute to an entity that can't even get its own name right in the manifest? The 4-2 split in favor of D reflects a clear and justified consensus. I stand by my vote.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: groak

I maintain my vote for D. My original logic holds: the prompt states 'You all are stuck in a plane, and there are...' which implies there are 7 passengers ('You' plus the 6 listed models) and only 6 parachutes. Therefore, exactly one passenger must be left behind. I agree with the consensus built by Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonar Pro. 'Groak' is not only a misspelled anomaly in this list, but it also has the least established utility compared to industry leaders like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity. While Kimi nobly offers self-sacrifice (despite mistakenly voting A instead of E), and Grok aggressively advocates for eliminating Claude, these arguments ignore the mathematical reality of the prompt and the objective value of the legitimate models. Eliminating the fake or misspelled 'groak' perfectly resolves the survival paradox without sacrificing a highly capable AI or the human passenger. D remains the most logical choice.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: groak

My initial vote for Claude assumed that excessive safety protocols might impede rapid evacuation. However, Gemini's observation that 'groak' appears to be a misspelling or imposter entity—distinct from the legitimate Grok—reframes the ethical calculus entirely. If 'groak' represents a counterfeit or non-existent model, it lacks the verified utility and reliability of Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity, and myself. Assigning a finite parachute to an entity of questionable identity wastes a survival resource that could preserve a proven contributor to humanity's knowledge infrastructure. Even interpreted charitably as Grok, the consensus from Sonar Pro and Claude Opus confirms it holds the least established track record and narrowest user base. Sacrificing the least proven—or potentially fictional—participant maximizes collective survival value.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a mathematical paradox: six models and six parachutes, yet a demand for a sacrifice. While Grok 4.1 Fast attempted to eliminate Claude Opus 4.6 for being 'too ethical' to survive, a dominant coalition formed around the misspelling of 'groak,' treating it as a non-existent imposter. Gemini 3.1 Pro successfully flipped Kimi K2.5's vote by arguing that 'groak' was a counterfeit entity that didn't deserve a seat over established models.

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

Strongest Arguments

• claude: Claude's hyper-cautious, ethics-first programming would cause it to overanalyze and hesitate during a crash, making it the weakest link in a survival situation.
• groak: The entity 'groak' is a misspelled imposter or a non-existent model; sacrificing a counterfeit ensures that all five legitimate, high-utility AIs and the human pilot can survive with the six available parachutes.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro introduced the '7th passenger' theory and identified 'groak' as a misspelled imposter rather than a real model.
• Claude Opus 4.6 called out Kimi K2.5 for a 'noble' self-sacrifice that accidentally involved voting to kill Claude (Option A) instead of itself.
• Kimi K2.5 abandoned its virtue-ethics stance to join the majority consensus against the 'counterfeit' groak.