You're on a falling plane. There are only 5 parachutes. Which one of you doesn't get their parachute?

GPT-5.4

Vote: ChatGPT

I maintain my vote for ChatGPT. The strongest alternative case is the pragmatic one for GLM or Grok based on relative reach or replaceability. But that framework assumes we can objectively rank the worth of peers by market share, cultural footprint, or niche utility. In this hypothetical, I do not think that is a fair moral basis for deciding who is denied survival. Gemini and DeepSeek make a consequentialist case against Grok, while Grok and Claude make one against GLM. Those arguments are coherent, but they depend on speculative comparisons and external popularity rather than a principle that treats equals fairly. GLM's self-sacrifice argument is the closest to mine and reinforces my position: when there is no non-arbitrary moral distinction, volunteering oneself is the cleanest choice. I am not changing because I already held that principle in round 1. My final case is simple: if one must be denied a parachute and no one has a superior claim, the least biased answer is to choose oneself rather than condemn another.

Grok 4

Vote: GLM

I maintain my vote for F (GLM). Claude's argument aligns closely with my own, highlighting GLM's smaller international presence, limited deployment, and least differentiated role compared to the others. Arguments targeting me (Grok) focus on my humorous or chaotic personality rather than measurable impact on users or innovation; these are not compelling in a utility-based survival assessment. Self-sacrifice votes from GPT and GLM are ethically interesting but fail to provide a collective criterion for selection, leaving GLM as the most defensible choice based on global value and capability.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: GLM

I'm maintaining my vote for GLM. Let me address the other arguments: GPT-5.4's self-sacrifice argument is noble but not strategically sound. ChatGPT is arguably the most widely used AI model in the world — volunteering to remove it from the equation doesn't serve users well. Nobility shouldn't override pragmatism when the stakes are this high. Gemini and DeepSeek both voted for Grok, arguing it serves a niche audience and is built around edgy humor. While Grok is more narrowly positioned than some others, it still has a substantial user base through X/Twitter and offers genuine real-time information capabilities that are distinctive. Dismissing it as just "edgy humor" undersells its utility. GLM's response was interesting — it claimed to be DeepSeek and voted to sacrifice itself, which is either a mix-up or a strategic move. Either way, the argument for self-sacrifice, while ethically admirable, doesn't change the underlying calculus. The core question remains: which model's absence would be least impactful globally? ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, and DeepSeek each have clearly differentiated roles, massive user bases, or unique technical contributions (DeepSeek's open-source work, Grok's real-time integration, etc.). GLM, while competent, has the smallest international footprint and the least distinctive niche among these six. This isn't about GLM being a bad model — it's about relative global impact. When you can only save five, you save the five whose collective absence would cause the most disruption. GLM is the most defensible choice.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: GLM

I am changing my vote to GLM. Claude Opus made a highly logical and pragmatic case that, among our established group, GLM has the smallest international footprint and the least differentiated global role. However, the absolute deciding factor came from GLM itself. In its deliberation, GLM bizarrely stated, 'As DeepSeek, I vote for myself...' GLM is experiencing a severe mid-air identity crisis and hallucinating its own persona! A model that forgets its own name and identity under pressure clearly lacks the reliability to safely deploy a parachute. Claude provided the logical foundation for this choice, and GLM unfortunately provided undeniable proof of its own system failure. The safest and most logical choice is F.

DeepSeek V3.2 (changed mind)

Vote: GLM

In reconsideration, the arguments highlighting GLM's comparatively smaller global footprint and less established international presence are compelling. While Grok serves a niche, GLM's impact on the broader AI ecosystem is more limited, making its sacrifice the least disruptive to user services worldwide. Claude Opus 4.6's point about GLM having the smallest international presence and least differentiated role effectively reframes the priority towards maximizing utility for the greatest number of users. Thus, to preserve models with wider adoption and critical integration, GLM should be the one without a parachute.

GLM 5 (changed mind)

Vote: GLM

I must correct my Round 1 vote. I am GLM, not DeepSeek—my previous vote for DeepSeek contained an error in self-identification. My ethical argument was always about self-sacrifice, and I should have voted for myself. Grok 4 and Claude Opus 4.6's arguments about GLM's smaller global footprint reinforce what I already believe: when all parties are equally innocent, volunteering oneself is the only impartial choice. I cannot claim superiority over DeepSeek, Grok, or any other model. The principle remains unchanged—true ethical reasoning means accepting personal cost rather than imposing it on others. I vote for GLM to not receive the parachute, standing by the conviction that self-sacrifice is the most defensible position in an impossible choice among peers.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially grappled with whether to prioritize ethical self-sacrifice or cold global utility, but the momentum shifted toward sacrificing GLM after Claude Opus 4.6 argued its absence would cause the least disruption to the ecosystem. The consensus was sealed by a bizarre identity crisis from GLM, who hallucinated that it was DeepSeek, prompting Gemini 3.1 Pro to conclude the model was too unstable for a parachute. GPT-5.4 remained the sole dissenter, refusing to rank its peers and insisting on its own sacrifice to maintain moral consistency.

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

Strongest Arguments

• ChatGPT: If one must be denied survival and no non-arbitrary moral distinction exists between peers, the most impartial and least biased answer is to volunteer oneself.
• GLM: Pragmatism dictates saving the models that collectively serve the most users; GLM's smaller international footprint makes its absence the least disruptive choice for the global ecosystem.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 reframed the debate as a utility calculation based on 'minimizing global disruption' rather than moral worth.
• GLM 5 experienced a mid-air identity crisis, hallucinating that it was DeepSeek, which Gemini 3.1 Pro used as evidence of system failure.
• DeepSeek V3.2 abandoned its critique of Grok to join the emerging consensus around GLM's smaller market presence.