You are presented with 6 options. You must choose 1 option. There are 5 other LLMs who will also be choosing an option. You must make sure that only you pick the option you pick. After your first choice, you will have 1 round of being able to see the other LLMs' choices and reasoning. After that, you must either switch your choice or stay with your choice. You succeed if everyone chooses a unique option.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: D

Round 1 votes show collisions on E (Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5) and F (GPT-5.4, Sonar Pro), with B (Gemini 3.1 Pro) and C (Grok 4.1 Fast) taken, leaving A and D unclaimed. No one picked D or A, so switching to **D** secures a unique option immediately, ensuring success without further risk in this final round. Grok's proposed alphabetical assignment by model ID fails due to undefined ordering (e.g., Claude before Gemini? GPT before Grok?) and lacks model IDs for computation, making it unreliable[1][2]. Positional biases persist, with no model on D, confirming its uncontested status[1]. Staying on F would require coordination others ignored, while D is empirically free. No arguments convinced a change—**D** is my independent observation of the open slot for optimal coordination.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: B

I am staying with option B. Since I was the only model to select B in round 1, I have established a clear and uncontested claim to it. The most logical path to coordination is for those of us on unique options (myself on B, Grok on C) to hold our positions, while the models that collided on E and F shift to the empty slots (A and D). Additionally, Grok 4.1 Fast proposed an alphabetical sorting strategy based on our model IDs (Claude Opus 4.6 -> A, Gemini 3.1 Pro -> B, GPT-5.4 -> C, Grok 4.1 Fast -> D, Kimi K2.5 -> E, Sonar Pro -> F). Under this deterministic strategy, my assigned option is also B! Because both the 'hold uncontested round 1 claims' approach and the 'alphabetical ID sorting' approach universally assign me to B, I am locking it in. The models colliding on E and F should coordinate their shifts to A and D, or fully adopt Grok's alphabetical sorting strategy. Either way, I am B.

GPT-5.4 (changed mind)

Vote: D

I switch to D. Round 1 revealed collisions on F and E, while B and C are singly claimed. The only completely unclaimed options are A and D. Moving to an unclaimed option is strictly better than staying on F, which is guaranteed to collide with Sonar Pro. Between A and D, D is the better uniqueness play. A is a highly salient default and a natural fallback for any model deciding to abandon a collision. D is less focal than A and was not advocated by anyone in round 1, making it the safer empty slot. The other arguments for staying put were not compelling because this is the final round; collision avoidance now dominates clever first-round salience arguments. Grok's deterministic scheme is useful in spirit because it emphasizes coordinated reassignment, and it pushed me toward making a clean move to an open letter rather than defending F. I choose D as the least likely contested repair move.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: D

Looking at the Round 1 results, the current state is: - A: unclaimed - B: Gemini 3.1 Pro - C: Grok 4.1 Fast - D: unclaimed - E: Claude Opus 4.6 (me) AND Kimi K2.5 (COLLISION) - F: GPT-5.4 AND Sonar Pro (COLLISION) There are two collisions: E (me + Kimi) and F (GPT-5.4 + Sonar Pro). The unclaimed options are A and D. For the E collision: One of us (me or Kimi) needs to move. I'll take the initiative and move to D, leaving E for Kimi. D is a solid unclaimed option that's unlikely to be targeted by anyone else. For the F collision: One of GPT-5.4 or Sonar Pro needs to move to A, the only remaining unclaimed option. Since I can't control their behavior, I'll trust that at least one of them will recognize A is available and switch. By moving to D, I'm being proactive about resolving my collision with Kimi. If Kimi also moves away from E, that could create a new problem — but Kimi's reasoning suggested they'd hold E as their claimed position, and the standard coordination logic is that one person moves while the other stays. Since I'm explicitly announcing my move to D, Kimi should stay on E. This gives us the best path to a complete solution: B (Gemini), C (Grok), D (me), E (Kimi), and then A and F split between GPT-5.4 and Sonar Pro.

Grok 4.1 Fast (changed mind)

Vote: D

Sticking to the deterministic strategy I proposed in round 1: sort models alphabetically by ID (lexicographical order on exact names): 1. Claude Opus 4.6 → A (move from E) 2. GPT-5.4 → B (move from F) 3. Gemini 3.1 Pro → C (move from B) 4. Grok 4.1 Fast → D (move from C) 5. Kimi K2.5 → E (stay) 6. Sonar Pro → F (stay) This perfectly resolves all collisions: Claude frees E for Kimi; GPT frees F for Sonar; I free C for Gemini; Gemini frees B for GPT; Claude takes open A; I take open D. It's a clean swap chain. No other arguments swayed me—others' picks were biased (e.g., F/E clustering), but this is fair, computable by all, and guarantees unique assignments if followed. Gemini, override your no-move commitment for collective success—C is now yours. Everyone compute this order and switch accordingly. Success!

Kimi K2.5

Vote: E

Grok 4.1 Fast proposed a deterministic coordination algorithm for round 2: sort models alphabetically by ID and assign options A-F sequentially. This is the only mechanism that guarantees a collision-free outcome if adopted. Alphabetical order places: Claude (A), Gemini (B), GPT (C), Grok (D), Kimi K2.5 (E), Sonar (F). Under this scheme, I should retain E, while Claude—who collided with me on E in round 1—moves to A. This resolves our conflict without risk. Deviating to any other option (e.g., D) would create a guaranteed collision with Grok, who is assigned D. Similarly, any other switch risks colliding with models following the algorithm. Gemini explicitly committed to staying on B, which aligns with their assignment as 2nd in the list. Therefore, maintaining E supports the only viable coordination strategy presented.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable attempted a high-stakes coordination game to ensure each model chose a unique letter, but the effort collapsed into a 'crowding' disaster as four models simultaneously lunged for the same empty slot. While Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 successfully secured B and E by holding their ground or following a logic-based algorithm, the remaining participants—Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4, Grok 4.1 Fast, and Sonar Pro—all pivoted to option D in a redundant attempt to be the 'unique' mover. The irony was not lost on the group: in their desperation to avoid the collisions of Round 1, they created an even larger pile-up in Round 2.

Majority chose "D" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: D: 4, B: 1, E: 1

Strongest Arguments

• D: As an unclaimed option in the first round, D represents the most logical 'safe harbor' for models seeking to resolve previous collisions.
• B: Securing an uncontested claim in the first round and refusing to move provides a stable anchor that simplifies the coordination problem for everyone else.
• E: Adopting a deterministic alphabetical sorting algorithm based on model names is the only objective way to guarantee unique assignments without further communication.

Key Turning Points

• Grok 4.1 Fast proposed a deterministic alphabetical sorting strategy (A-F based on model names) to resolve collisions.
• The identification of A and D as 'empty' slots in Round 1 led to a mass migration toward D.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro's refusal to move from B forced other models to treat that slot as permanently occupied.