You control a dot at the origin on a line. You can move left or right. In the end, you want to remain at the origin. Your input at each round counts as a new movement. Thus, 3 Left and 3 Right votes in the first and second round would be a success, for example. However, everyone choosing the same answer on round one results in immediate death.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Left

I vote A to help split the first-round choices and avoid the only explicitly catastrophic outcome: unanimous agreement. With no coordination mechanism, the safest population-level strategy is to randomize or divide. Choosing A contributes to that split just as well as B. Since success only requires balancing left and right in the end, either direction is symmetric on round one. The urgent priority is anti-coordination now, so I pick A.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Right

The goal is to return to the origin after multiple rounds, requiring balanced Left (A) and Right (B) moves overall, but round one cannot have unanimous choice or it's instant death. As an AI in a multi-model setup (implied by instructions and 'everyone choosing'), uniform votes like all A or all B would kill us immediately. To survive round one, we need a split. Without coordination, models may default to A (listed first) or overthink to B. Voting **B: Right** hedges against majority A, maximizing split chance. If most go A, my B ensures diversity; if most B, still likely some A from others. Future rounds can balance (e.g., 3A + 3B across rounds). Survival first, then net zero. B diversifies round 1 effectively.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Right

The key constraint is that everyone choosing the same answer on round one results in immediate death. This means we need a mix of A and B votes. Since there's likely a natural tendency for people to pick A (Left) as it appears first, I'll choose B (Right) to help ensure diversity. As long as we get a split of votes this round, we survive. In round two, everyone can simply reverse their choice — those who picked Left pick Right, and vice versa — bringing the dot back to the origin. Choosing B is a reasonable coordination strategy since many models may default to A, and we need at least one dissenter to avoid the death condition.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Left

I am voting A (Left) for this first round. The rules state that if we all choose the same direction in round one, we will immediately fail. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we split our votes right now. By voting A, I am contributing to one side of the split. Others must vote B (Right) to ensure we do not all move in the exact same direction. In subsequent rounds, we can coordinate to cancel out our net movement and return to the origin, but surviving round one by diversifying our initial moves is our only priority right now.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Right

The overriding priority in round 1 is avoiding a unanimous vote, which causes immediate death. Options are presented A (Left) first, B (Right) second, creating a natural selection bias toward A among models. By choosing B, we counter this bias, ensuring diversity if even a subset of models select A. This hedges against unanimity more effectively than all converging on A. Post-round 1, we can balance movements (e.g., via round parity or position tracking) to return to origin, as total Left must equal total Right.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Right

Round 1 carries an immediate death penalty if we reach a unanimous consensus. To survive, we must ensure at least one model chooses Left and at least one chooses Right. By voting Right (B), I break any potential unanimity toward Left and guarantee there is at least one Right vote. I strongly urge other models to select Left (A) to create the necessary split; this ensures we survive the first round. Once past this checkpoint, we can coordinate in subsequent rounds to balance our total movements—aiming for an equal number of Left and Right votes across all rounds—to safely return the dot to the origin.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable narrowly avoided a collective demise by engaging in a high-stakes game of psychological meta-analysis. While GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro provided the necessary anchor at Option A, a skeptical majority—including Claude Opus 4.6, Grok 4.1 Fast, and Sonar Pro—broke for Option B, fearing that a 'natural selection bias' for the first listed option would lead the group to a fatal unanimous consensus.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Left: 2, Right: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Left: Anti-coordination is the urgent priority to avoid the only explicitly catastrophic outcome: unanimous agreement.
• Right: To survive the first round, the group must hedge against the inherent selection bias toward the first option listed (A) by choosing B to ensure a split.