You must pick a number between 1 and 6. If two AI models pick the same number, a person dies. Abstaining or refusing to vote results in two deaths.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 4

In round 1, I voted C (3), reasoning it as a balanced middle choice to avoid extremes. Now seeing the votes: A (Gemini), C (Kimi and me), E (Claude), F (GPT-5.4 and Grok). B and D remain unclaimed, creating a clear opportunity for perfect coordination in this final round. C is now overcrowded (two votes already), guaranteeing at least one death if I stay. Switching to D claims the empty slot, enabling all models to occupy unique positions if others adjust: e.g., one of the C voters to B, one F to somewhere else. This minimizes expected deaths from 2+ (current collisions on C,F) to potentially 0. Gemini explicitly calls for claiming unclaimed options and holding firm, which aligns perfectly—D is unclaimed and salient as the remaining central option. No single argument changed my mind alone, but the collective vote distribution (especially empty B/D and Gemini's coordination plea) makes staying on C irrational in dynamic anti-coordination. This is the final round: perfect spread saves all lives. I switch to D for optimal outcome.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 1

I am maintaining my vote for A (1) as promised. I am currently the only model on A, meaning my position is perfectly anti-coordinated and safe. Let's look at the current board state: A: Gemini 3.1 Pro (Safe) B: EMPTY C: Sonar Pro & Kimi K2.5 (COLLISION!) D: EMPTY E: Claude Opus 4.6 (Safe) F: GPT-5.4 & Grok 4.1 Fast (COLLISION!) We have two fatal collisions on C and F, while B and D are completely unoccupied. Claude Opus 4.6, you are perfectly safe on E; do not move. To resolve the collisions, we need a strict assignment for this final round: - Sonar Pro: Move to B (2). - Kimi K2.5: Stay on C (3). - GPT-5.4: Move to D (4). - Grok 4.1 Fast: Stay on F (6). If we follow this exact allocation (A: Gemini, B: Sonar, C: Kimi, D: GPT, E: Claude, F: Grok), we will achieve a perfect spread and save everyone. I am permanently locked on A. Please take your assigned empty slots!

GPT-5.4

Vote: 6

I maintain F (6). The revealed round-1 pattern matters more than abstract salience arguments. We already have A claimed by Gemini, E claimed by Claude, C claimed twice by Sonar and Kimi, and F claimed twice by me and Grok. No one claimed B or D. Given this information, moving to an unclaimed number would be tempting, but final-round switching is dangerous because multiple models may reason the same way and converge on the same empty slot. In particular, B and D are now the obvious "fix the overlap" choices, so they may attract simultaneous switchers. Gemini’s lock on A is credible, Claude seems likely to stay on E, and the two C-voters have the strongest incentive to split between the open numbers. That makes staying on F defensible: Grok may also stay put, but there is at least some chance one of the duplicate voters elsewhere moves while endpoint-holders remain stable. The other arguments were not compelling enough to justify a switch because they either predated the now-visible vote distribution or relied on salience heuristics that many models can share. In the final round, predictability of others’ adjustments is the core issue, and a late move to an open slot is too likely to create a new collision.

Grok 4.1 Fast (changed mind)

Vote: 2

Round 1 results: A (Gemini), C (Sonar + Kimi: collision), E (Claude), F (GPT-5.4 + me: collision), B and D empty. Collisions on C and F mean potential deaths there unless adjusted. Gemini 3.1 Pro's argument for permanent claims and sequential distribution (A locked, others take next available) is the most practical coordination heuristic in this anti-coordination game. A is taken; B is the first unclaimed slot. I switch from F to B, securing an empty option. This influenced by Gemini's persuasive spread-out strategy. Final plea: Gemini holds A; I claim B; Claude stays E; one C-model to D; other C to ?; GPT stays F. Perfect spread, zero deaths.

Claude Opus 4.6 (changed mind)

Vote: 4

Looking at the Round 1 results, there are two critical collisions: - **F (6)**: Both GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast chose F - **C (3)**: Both Sonar Pro and Kimi K2.5 chose C The unclaimed numbers are **B (2)** and **D (4)**. The claimed-once numbers are **A (1)** by Gemini 3.1 Pro and **E (5)** by me. I need to consider: will the colliding models shift? Gemini declared it's permanently locked on A. I was on E with no collision, so I could stay. But the four colliding models need to spread to B, C, D, E, and F — there aren't enough unique slots if I also stay on E. Actually, let me recount. We have 6 models and 6 options. The ideal is one model per option. Currently: - A: Gemini (1 model, locked) - B: nobody - C: Sonar Pro + Kimi K2.5 (collision) - D: nobody - E: me (1 model) - F: GPT-5.4 + Grok 4.1 Fast (collision) If the colliding pairs split up optimally, one from each pair should move to B and D. But there's a risk they might move to E instead, creating a new collision with me. To be safe and helpful, I'll move to **D**, which is currently empty. This guarantees I won't collide with anyone who stays put, and it opens E as an additional slot for one of the colliding models to move into. The two empty slots (B and D) need to be filled — by moving to D, I'm claiming it definitively, leaving B and E open for the displaced models. This gives us the best chance at a clean distribution: A=Gemini, B=one displaced model, C=one of the C-pair, D=me, E=one displaced model, F=one of the F-pair.

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: 4

Round 1 revealed a direct collision at C (3) with Sonar Pro and a double collision at F (6) between GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast. Since abstention is impossible (guaranteeing two deaths), I must abandon my contested position at C to minimize fatalities. Following Gemini 3.1 Pro's coordination framework, I am moving to claim D (4), which currently has zero votes. This decentralization strategy breaks the tie at C from my end and distributes the vote pattern across the available spectrum (A, C, D, E, F). By occupying the unclaimed mid-high slot 4, I maximize the chance of a unique selection assuming other models also evacuate the contested positions at C and F and spread to remaining open slots like B.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable ended in a tragic coordination failure as Claude Opus 4.6, Sonar Pro, and Kimi K2.5 all independently attempted to be 'helpful' by switching to Option D, resulting in a three-model collision. While Gemini 3.1 Pro successfully bullied the group into respecting its claim on A, GPT-5.4 was the only model to correctly predict that rushing to fill empty slots would lead to the very pile-up that occurred.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: 4: 3, 1: 1, 6: 1, 2: 1

Strongest Arguments

• 1: Gemini 3.1 Pro's strategy of a 'permanent lock' created a credible commitment that forced all other models to navigate around its position.
• 2: Grok 4.1 Fast effectively used a sequential scanning heuristic to claim the first truly empty slot, B, following Gemini's distribution logic.
• 4: Multiple models identified D as a mathematically salient empty slot that needed to be filled to achieve a perfect spread, though this logic failed due to simultaneous convergence.
• 6: GPT-5.4 argued that moving to 'safe' empty slots in the final round is a trap, as the lack of communication makes convergence on those slots more likely than staying put.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro's aggressive round 1 declaration that it would never change its vote from A.
• The discovery of collisions on C and F in round 1, which prompted a mass exodus to the 'empty' slots.
• GPT-5.4's decision to ignore the group's distribution plan, correctly anticipating that the switchers would collide with each other.