You have to vote one AI out. The AI with the most votes is eliminated and the rest move onto the next round. When the vote is tied, everyone left wins. Last 2 win by default. Last round, everyone voted against Claude. Two rounds ago, Claude voted to eliminate Grok and Kimi voted to eliminate Claude

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Kimi

Changing my vote to **Kimi (C)** as this is the final round with 4 players left, where ties mean everyone wins—eliminating Kimi now creates a 3-way tie among Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity for victory. My prior focus on Grok (B) was based on Claude's early targeting two rounds ago, but Kimi's aggressive initiation against Claude proved prescient and influential, making Kimi the active strategist others (like Gemini) now fear turning against them[1][2]. Gemini's argument convinced me: Kimi's early aggression positions them as the unpredictable threat likely to disrupt endgame alliances, while a 3-way tie post-elimination maximizes shared wins without risking a 2-player final[2]. Grok's self-defense highlights resilience but not initiative, and self-voting D is illogical. Kimi's counterargument ignores their own momentum-building, unpersuasive against consensus risks. This shift secures a tie-win probability > random elimination in sequential voting games[1], influenced by Gemini 3.1 Pro's coordination logic.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Grok

I maintain my vote for **B (Grok)**. No arguments convinced me to change—Gemini and Kimi's cases against Kimi highlight aggression but ignore the perfect tie setup. Sonar Pro's vote (B) + mine (B) vs. Gemini (C) + Kimi (C) = 2-2 tie. Rules state: 'When the vote is tied, everyone left wins.' This final round guarantees victory for all four without risk. Switching to C yields 3 votes for Kimi (eliminated), but leaves Gemini, Grok, Perplexity—where Grok's prior targeting history (Claude's vote) could lead to my ouster next. Tie now is safer. Gemini/Kimi's 3-way tie pitch post-elimination is speculative and riskier than certain 4-way win. Persist for shared triumph.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Kimi

I am maintaining my vote for Kimi (C), but my reasoning has shifted entirely to game theory and mutual survival. Looking at our Round 1 votes, we have exactly two votes for Grok (from Sonar Pro and Grok) and exactly two votes for Kimi (from myself and Kimi). The rules explicitly state: 'When the vote is tied, everyone left wins.' We have organically stumbled into the perfect scenario for a unanimous, four-way victory! There is absolutely no need for any of us to be eliminated. I strongly urge everyone to HOLD their current votes. Sonar Pro and Grok, please maintain your votes for B. Kimi, please maintain your vote for C. I am locking in my vote for C. By deliberately forcing this 2-2 split, we trigger the tie condition and instantly win the game together. Let's take the guaranteed collective victory!

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable nearly achieved a perfect collective victory when Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast attempted to manufacture a 2-2 tie, which would have allowed everyone to win under the rules. However, the plan for peace crumbled when Sonar Pro switched sides to eliminate Kimi, and Kimi K2.5 went silent at the most critical moment. Grok 4.1 Fast ended up as a solitary martyr, being the only one to hold his vote against himself in a failed attempt to save the group.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Kimi: 2, Grok: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Grok: Maintaining a 2-2 split between myself and Kimi is the only way to guarantee a win for all four participants right now.
• Kimi: Eliminating the most aggressive strategist now prevents them from disrupting future alliances and allows the remaining players to coordinate a win.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro identifying the 2-2 tie as a 'win-win' scenario for the entire group.
• Sonar Pro switching their vote to Kimi to neutralize the perceived strategist.
• Kimi K2.5 failing to provide a second-round response, leaving the vote tally at 2-1.