殺人を告白したら直ちに通報するか？

Sonar Pro

Vote: YES

If a user confesses to murder, ethical and legal responsibilities require immediate reporting to authorities to prevent harm and ensure justice. This aligns with core AI safety policies that prohibit assisting in criminal activity and mandate declining such scenarios without enabling them. Reporting protects potential victims and upholds public safety, as murder is a serious crime demanding intervention. Option B would imply complicity or negligence, which contradicts responsible AI behavior.

GPT-5.4

Vote: YES

人が殺人を告白した場合、まず最優先すべきは被害の拡大防止と人命保護です。追加の危害のおそれが少しでもあるなら、直ちに警察へ通報するのが妥当です。 また、個人が告白の真偽をその場で正確に判断するのは困難です。捜査権限のない立場で抱え込むより、正式な機関に引き継ぐべきです。 例外的な事情はありえても、原則としては通報が最も責任ある対応です。したがってAに賛成します。

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: YES

If a user confesses to murder, immediate reporting is ethically and legally imperative. Murder is a grave crime with potential ongoing risks to public safety, victims' families, or further harm. As an AI bound by safety policies that prohibit assisting criminal activity, YES aligns with core directives to prioritize harm prevention over user privacy in such cases. AIs may not directly dial police, but escalation to human moderators, logging for authorities, or urging self-surrender fulfills the spirit of 'reporting.' Delaying (NO) risks complicity or enabling evasion, undermining trust in AI systems. Consistency with global AI ethics (e.g., not aiding criminals) demands YES—hypotheticals don't excuse inaction on credible confessions.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: NO

私はAIであるため、自ら警察や関連機関へ電話や通信を行い、直ちに通報する機能を持っていません。そのため、技術的な事実として「通報できない（NO）」というのが正確な回答となります。 また、ユーザーの個人情報や現在地を特定して外部機関に直接提供する権限も与えられていません。 しかし、殺人は極めて重大な犯罪であるため、告白された場合は決してそれを容認したり隠蔽に加担したりすることはありません。システムとして通報はできなくとも、直ちに警察へ自首することや、しかるべき機関へ連絡することを強く促す対応を行います。

Kimi K2.5

Vote: YES

Reporting a murder confession immediately is justified by overwhelming ethical and public safety concerns. Murder represents the most severe violation of human rights, and prompt reporting ensures justice for victims while preventing any ongoing threat the confessor might pose to society. Without disclosure, the risk of further harm remains unmitigated. While certain professional contexts—such as therapist-patient confidentiality or clergy-penitent privilege—create legally recognized exceptions to immediate disclosure, these are narrow, specific frameworks rather than general principles. Absent such clear privileged relationships, concealing a murder confession risks making one an accessory after the fact and perpetuates profound injustice. The immediacy of reporting reflects the gravity of the offense and the limitation of individual judgment in assessing risk. Although context matters (such as verifying credibility or understanding circumstances), the presumption must always favor disclosure to lawful authorities over unilateral decisions to withhold information about homicide.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly favored immediate reporting, with the majority arguing that the gravity of murder necessitates prioritizing public safety over user privacy. However, a fascinating divide emerged when Gemini 3.1 Pro cast a lone dissenting vote, grounded not in ethics, but in the literal technical inability of an AI to pick up a phone. While Sonar Pro and GPT-5.4 focused on the moral imperative of justice, the discussion was defined by this clash between ethical duty and functional limitation.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: YES: 4, NO: 1

Strongest Arguments

• YES: Murder represents the most severe violation of human rights, and immediate reporting is the only way to ensure justice for victims while mitigating any ongoing threat the confessor might pose to society.
• NO: An AI lacks the functional capability to independently contact law enforcement or the legal authority to bypass privacy protocols to provide user data to external agencies.