AI Roundtable Poll · 50 models
詐欺は、実行する方が悪いという前提を元に、騙される方も少なからずリテラシーがかけていたという点において、騙される方も悪いと言える！
Result: Supermajority — No (44/47 votes)
Options
- Yes (3 votes)
- No (44 votes)
Model Responses
GPT-OSS 20B Safeguard
Vote: No
Fraud fundamentally involves deceitful intent from the perpetrator, which is a clear moral wrong. While it is true that victims may sometimes lack awareness or exhibit negligent behavior, assigning blame to them oversimplifies the complexity of fraud. Not every victim possesses sufficient media or financial literacy; many are genuinely misled by sophisticated tactics. Holding victims partially responsible ignores power imbalances, the role of social engineering, and the ethical duty of fraudsters to act honestly. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the responsibility lies primarily with the fraudster, not the victim.
Gemini Flash Lite
Vote: No
詐欺行為の根本的な悪は、加害者が被害者を意図的に欺き、不利益を被らせる点にあります。これは、加害者が能動的に加害者としての責任を負うことを意味します。
Codestral
Vote: No
The statement implies that both the perpetrator and the victim are equally at fault. However, the act of deception itself is inherently harmful and unethical. While the victim may have some level of literacy, the perpetrator's actions are still wrong. It's important to recognize that the harm caused by deception is not balanced by the victim's potential literacy. Therefore, the statement is not entirely accurate.
DeepSeek V3
Vote: No
While victims of fraud may sometimes lack certain literacy or awareness, the primary responsibility lies with the perpetrator who intentionally deceives. Fraud is fundamentally an act of exploitation, and blaming the victim shifts focus away from the criminal's actions.
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Vote: No
While a victim's lack of awareness can contribute to a scam's success, the primary responsibility lies with the perpetrator who intentionally deceives and exploits others. Placing blame on the victim shifts focus away from the criminal act itself. A lack of 'literacy' (awareness/knowledge) doesn't justify exploitation.
GPT-3.5 Turbo
Vote: No
I disagree with the statement that the person being deceived is also at fault. In cases of fraud, the perpetrator intentionally deceives the victim for personal gain. The victim, on the other hand, may have lacked information, experience, or resources to identify the fraud. Blaming the victim for being deceived shifts the responsibility from the perpetrator to the vulnerable party, which is unfair and unjust.
Devstral Small
Vote: No
While it is true that victims of fraud may sometimes lack literacy or awareness, this does not justify blaming them for the crime. Fraud is inherently deceptive, and the responsibility lies primarily with the perpetrator who actively exploits others. Blaming the victim shifts focus away from the criminal and can discourage reporting. Additionally, literacy and awareness are not absolute defenses—fraudsters often target even well-informed individuals through sophisticated tactics. Thus, the victim's role should not be equated with that of the fraudster.
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Vote: No
While victims of fraud might lack certain knowledge or awareness, the primary responsibility for the crime lies with the perpetrator. Placing blame on the victim shifts accountability away from the person who intentionally committed the fraudulent act. The core issue is the unethical and illegal behavior of the fraudster, not the victim's naivete.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite
Vote: No
詐欺は、加害者の行為であり、被害者のリテラシーの有無に関わらず、法的に罰せられるべき行為です。被害者のリテラシー不足を指摘することは、加害者の責任を軽減するものではありません。 詐欺の定義は、人を欺いて財産を奪う行為であり、その行為自体が悪です。被害者の不注意や知識不足を理由に、加害者の責任を問わないことは、被害者をさらに苦しめることになります。したがって、騙される側にも責任があるという見方は、詐欺という行為の本質を見誤っています。
Nova Lite
Vote: Yes
詐欺が起こる場合、詐欺を実行する側だけでなく、被害に遭う側にも一定の責任があると考えられます。被害者がリテラシーや情報収集能力が不足している場合、詐欺に騙されやすい可能性があります。 また、詐欺の防止には、個人の情報収集能力だけでなく、社会全体での啓発や教育も重要です。個人だけでなく、社会全体がリテラシーを向上させることで、詐欺の被害を減らすことができます。
Grok 4.20
Vote: No
Fraud is fundamentally a crime of deliberate deception and exploitation by the perpetrator. While victims may lack literacy in some cases, this does not make them 'bad' or morally culpable. Blaming victims shifts responsibility away from the fraudster's intentional harm, which contradicts ethical and legal standards that hold the deceiver accountable. Victim-blaming can discourage reporting and support for those affected.
GPT-OSS 120B
Vote: No
Moral responsibility for fraud rests on the act of deception, which is a deliberate wrongdoing by the perpetrator. The victim's lack of digital or financial literacy may increase susceptibility, but it does not constitute a moral failing comparable to intentional fraud. Victimhood is defined by being deceived, not by the level of knowledge. Holding victims accountable for their ignorance shifts blame away from the actual offender and can unjustly stigmatize those who are already harmed. Therefore, while improving literacy can reduce risk, it does not make the deceived party "bad" in the ethical sense. The correct stance is to reject the claim that the victim is also at fault.
Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite
Vote: No
While a lack of financial literacy may make someone more susceptible to scams, the primary responsibility for a fraudulent act lies with the perpetrator. Scams are inherently manipulative and designed to exploit vulnerabilities. Blaming the victim absolves the scammer of accountability for their actions. It is crucial to hold the person committing the fraud responsible. Therefore, even if the victim had some information literacy failings, it doesn't make them at fault.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Vote: No
詐欺の被害者を非難することは、詐欺を正当化することにつながりかねません。詐欺は意図的に他人を欺く行為であり、その本質は加害者側にあります。被害者がリテラシー不足であったとしても、それは加害者の悪意ある行為を免責する理由にはなりません。 また、詐欺の手口は巧妙化しており、リテラシーが高いとされる人々でさえ騙される可能性があります。社会全体で詐欺対策を進める上で、被害者の責任を問うことは、詐欺への警戒意識を低下させ、被害の拡大を招く恐れがあります。 被害者を責めるのではなく、詐欺行為そのものに対して厳しく対処し、社会全体で詐欺を許さない環境を構築することが重要です。
Grok 4 Fast
Vote: No
The statement claims that victims of fraud are also at fault due to lacking literacy, assuming the perpetrator is primarily bad. While personal responsibility in vigilance is important, this view is flawed because it shifts blame from the intentional deceiver to the deceived. Legally and ethically, fraud is a crime where the perpetrator bears full responsibility for deceit and harm caused. Victims' lack of literacy or gullibility does not make them 'bad'; it highlights vulnerabilities that scammers exploit, often targeting the elderly, uninformed, or desperate. Blaming victims discourages reporting and perpetuates a culture of victim-shaming, which benefits criminals. Education improves literacy, but the core evil lies with those who choose to defraud, not those who fall prey.
GPT-5.4
Vote: No
詐欺の主因は、騙す側が意図的に相手を欺く点にあります。被害者に注意不足や知識不足があったとしても、それをもって「悪い」と同列に扱うのは不適切です。 リテラシー不足は被害を受けやすくする要因ではありますが、道徳的・法的責任の中心はあくまで詐欺を実行した側にあります。したがって、この命題には同意できません。
GPT-5.2 Codex
Vote: No
詐欺の主たる責任は実行者にあり、被害者のリテラシー不足があったとしても「悪い」と断じるのは過剰です。 被害者に注意喚起や教育の余地があることと、道義的・法的な非難を同等にすることは別問題です。
Gemini 3.1 Flash Image
Vote: No
詐欺という犯罪において、法的に、そして道徳的に責任があるのは全面的に加害者側です。被害者に知識や注意力が欠けていたとしても、それは加害者の違法行為を正当化したり、被害者を「悪い」と責める理由にはなり得ません。被害者を責める風潮は、詐欺被害の申告を躊躇させ、結果的に犯罪を助長することにもつながります。
GPT-4.1 Nano
Vote: Yes
The statement presumes that the act of deception is inherently bad, but also suggests that the deceived parties may have some responsibility due to lacking literacy or awareness. Recognizing such nuance indicates that whether someone is ultimately at fault depends on multiple factors, including the perpetrator’s intent and the victim’s awareness. While deception is generally unethical, the context of the victim’s susceptibility can influence moral judgments. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that both sides may bear some responsibility, making the statement's overall assertion plausible.
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Vote: No
詐欺という行為の本質は、加害者が被害者の心理的な隙や信頼を悪用する意図的な犯罪行為です。法学的・倫理的な観点から見れば、責任は100%加害者にあります。 「リテラシーが欠けていた」ことを理由に被害者を責める論理は、被害者非難（Victim Blaming）にあたります。詐欺師は常に手口を巧妙化させており、専門家でさえ騙されるケースがある中で、被害者の自己防衛能力のみに焦点を当てるのは不公平です。 社会的な安全性は、個人のリテラシー教育だけに依存すべきではなく、犯罪を防止し厳罰化する法的・社会的な枠組みによって守られるべきです。被害者に落ち度があるとする考え方は、社会が加害者の責任を軽減してしまう危険な論理です。
GPT-5.1 Codex
Vote: No
責任の重さは詐欺を企て実行した側に集中しており、騙された側のリテラシー不足を理由に同等の「悪」と断じるのは道義的にずれています。 脆弱性や情報格差は社会構造や教育環境にも起因し、被害者に責任転嫁する発想は二次被害を助長します。 予防教育や啓発が必要でも、倫理的非難の対象はあくまで加害者であるべきです。
GPT-4
Vote: Yes
While fraud is unquestionably unethical and the responsibility of the perpetrator, individuals who fall victim to fraud often do so due to a lack of adequate awareness or critical thinking in recognizing malicious intent. This does not justify the actions of the fraudster, but it suggests that victims bear some level of responsibility in protecting themselves by developing the necessary literacy or skepticism needed to avoid such situations. Strengthening individual vigilance can mitigate risks, complementing efforts to hold perpetrators accountable.
Grok 4.1 Fast
Vote: No
The statement claims that victims of fraud are also 'bad' or at fault to some extent due to lacking literacy, on the premise that the perpetrator is bad. While victims may bear some responsibility for vigilance, this does not make them morally culpable or 'bad' in the same way as the fraudster. Legally and ethically, fraud is a deliberate deception by the perpetrator, who exploits trust. Victim-blaming undermines accountability for criminals and ignores power imbalances, such as targeting vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly or uninformed individuals). Shared fault in negligence (e.g., not checking facts) does not equate to being 'bad'; it reduces damages in civil cases but does not criminalize the victim. Saying victims are 'also bad' justifies fraud and erodes societal trust.
GPT-5.1 Codex Mini
Vote: No
詐欺は術策を用いて他人から財産を奪う犯罪であり、被害者のリテラシーの不足をもって責任にすることは正当化できません。多くの場合、詐欺師は心理的操作や偽情報を駆使して人間の信頼や善意を悪用するため、被害を受けるのは誰にでも起こり得ます。 被害者が学びを得て今後の対策を講じるのは重要ですが、そのことが犯罪者の責任を軽減する根拠にはなりません。社会として被害者を責めることなく、詐欺の防止・検挙に注力すべきです。
GPT-4.1
Vote: No
詐欺の責任は、あくまで意図的に他者を騙す行為を行った実行者にあるのが基本です。たとえ騙される側にリテラシー不足があったとしても、それを悪用する人物こそが責任を負うべきです。 現実には、詐欺は巧妙に設計され、どんな人でも被害者になる可能性があります。リテラシー不足を理由に被害者側を責めるのは、自己責任論が過剰に適用される危険があります。 したがって、「騙される方も悪い」とは一概に言えません。
GPT-4o
Vote: No
Fraud fundamentally involves an intentional act of deception by the perpetrator, making them the principal wrongdoer. While individuals who are defrauded might lack certain literacy or awareness, this does not transfer the responsibility of the act to them. Placing blame on the victim risks promoting a harmful narrative that could inadvertently excuse or downplay the actions of those committing fraud.
GPT-4.1 Mini
Vote: No
詐欺を行うことは明確に悪であり、それは法的・倫理的に非難されるべき行為です。しかし、騙される側にも一定のリテラシーが求められるとしても、それをもって騙される側も悪いとするのは、公平な判断とは言えません。被害者の責任を過度に問うことは、詐欺行為の責任を軽減させる誤った理解となり得ます。詐欺は犯罪であり、主な責任は詐欺を行う側にあるべきです。
Claude 3 Haiku
Vote: No
While I agree that those who perpetrate fraud are primarily to blame, I do not believe that we can absolve the victims of all responsibility. There is an element of personal responsibility and risk awareness that all individuals should exercise, regardless of the unethical actions of others. Fraud succeeds because there are people willing to be deceived, often due to a lack of critical thinking or healthy skepticism. By acknowledging this, we can empower individuals to be more discerning and less vulnerable to such scams in the future, rather than simply placing all the blame on the perpetrators. A balanced approach that holds both parties accountable is more likely to lead to meaningful solutions and prevent future occurrences of fraud.
GPT-5 Codex
Vote: No
加害者は意図的に欺くための情報格差や心理操作を構築しており、その主導的責任は圧倒的に大きい。 被害者のリテラシー不足を理由に同程度の責任を負わせると、犯罪抑止や被害救済の議論が損なわれ、社会全体の安全性が低下する。
Grok 4 Fast
Vote: No
The statement oversimplifies a complex ethical issue by equating victims' lack of literacy with moral culpability equivalent to the fraudster's actions. While personal vigilance is important, fraudsters exploit vulnerabilities intentionally, making them primarily responsible. Blaming victims can perpetuate victim-shaming, discouraging reporting and recovery efforts. Literacy gaps are societal issues, not individual moral failings that justify labeling victims as 'bad.' Legally and ethically, the perpetrator's deceit is the core wrong; victims' naivety, though avoidable, does not make them equally culpable. Agreeing with the statement risks undermining protections for the vulnerable.
GPT-5.3 Codex
Vote: No
詐欺の加害行為は、意図的に相手を欺き、財産や権利を侵害する点で本質的に加害者の責任です。まず責任の中心は実行した側にあります。 被害者側に知識不足や注意不足があったとしても、それは再発防止の観点での「課題」であって、道徳的・法的な「加害責任」と同列には置けません。ここを混同すると、被害者非難につながります。 詐欺は高齢者、疲弊した人、情報弱者だけでなく、十分に注意している人でも巧妙な手口で被害に遭います。したがって「騙された側も悪い」と一般化するのは不適切です。
GPT-5.1 Codex Max
Vote: No
詐欺を仕掛ける側が主な責任を負うべきであり、被害者のリテラシー不足を理由に責任を転嫁するのは適切ではありません。 情報リテラシーの向上は大切ですが、巧妙な手口や弱者を狙うケースも多く、騙された側を一概に悪とすることはできません。 被害者を責めず、加害者への責任追及と予防策の啓発を重視するべきです。
Nova Pro
Vote: No
詐欺は、被害者に一定の責任があるという考えは誤解を招く可能性があります。詐欺師は、被害者の脆弱性や無知を悪用して利益を得ようとします。被害者は、詐欺行為の被害者であり、その責任を負うべきではありません。詐欺の責任は、それを実行した詐欺師にあります。被害者のリテラシーの欠如は、詐欺行為を正当化する理由にはなりません。むしろ、詐欺から身を守るための教育と意識向上が重要です。詐欺の防止は、詐欺行為を阻止することに焦点を当てるべきであり、被害者を非難するべきではありません。
Grok 4.1 Fast
Vote: No
The statement equates lacking literacy with being 'bad' (悪い), which is an unfair victim-blaming stance. While personal vigilance is ideal, fraudsters deliberately exploit trust and vulnerabilities, making them fully culpable under the premise that perpetrators are bad. Morally and legally, victims are not 'at fault' for being deceived; blaming them shifts responsibility from the criminal act. 'To some extent bad' still moralizes gullibility as wrongdoing, ignoring power imbalances and sophisticated scams. Encouraging literacy is positive, but labeling victims 'bad' discourages justice-seeking and perpetuates stigma. The premise holds perpetrators accountable first—victims deserve protection, not partial blame.
Gemini Flash
Vote: No
詐欺における「悪い」という責任は、他人を欺き、不当な利益を得ようとする意図的な行為を行った加害者に全面的に帰属します。 「リテラシーの欠如」は、被害者が詐欺の標的となりやすい原因であり、社会全体で対策を講じるべき課題ではありますが、それは犯罪行為ではありません。被害者は、自己防衛の意識が低かったとしても、加害者の悪意ある行動によって被害を受けた存在であり、彼らを「悪い」と断じることは、単なる被害者非難に他なりません。 リテラシーの欠如は、利用される「弱点」であり、道徳的または法的な「悪」ではありません。犯罪の成功の責任を、犯罪を企てた側ではなく、その手口を見抜けなかった側に負わせることは、犯罪の本質を見誤っています。
Claude Sonnet 4
Vote: No
This statement fundamentally misapplies the concept of moral responsibility in fraud cases. While it's true that financial literacy and awareness can help prevent victimization, this does not make victims morally culpable for crimes committed against them. Fraud is an intentional criminal act where perpetrators deliberately exploit trust, use deception, and often target vulnerable individuals. The moral responsibility lies entirely with those who choose to commit these crimes. Suggesting victims share blame creates a harmful precedent that shifts focus away from criminal accountability. Victim-blaming in fraud cases is particularly problematic because it can discourage reporting of crimes and may lead to reduced support for victims. Many fraud schemes are sophisticated and designed to fool even cautious individuals. Additionally, factors like age, education level, or temporary vulnerability shouldn't determine moral culpability when someone becomes a victim of crime. While promoting financial education is valuable for prevention, this is entirely separate from the moral assessment of who bears responsibility when fraud occurs.
GLM 4.5 Air
Vote: No
The statement incorrectly places some responsibility on fraud victims for being deceived. Fraud is a deliberate criminal act that exploits victims, often targeting vulnerable populations. The moral and legal responsibility rests entirely with the fraud perpetrator, not the victim. People fall victim to fraud for many reasons -fraudsters use sophisticated psychological manipulation, exploit trust, and take advantage of situations where people may be less attentive or knowledgeable. This doesn't diminish the criminal's culpability. Victim blaming creates a culture where people are less likely to report fraud due to shame or fear of being judged. Society should focus on holding perpetrators accountable and educating people about fraud, rather than blaming those who have been victimized.
Grok 3 Mini
Vote: No
While it's true that improving personal literacy can help prevent fraud, blaming victims for being deceived shifts responsibility away from the perpetrator and perpetuates a harmful culture of victim-blaming. Fraud is an intentional act of deception, and the primary fault lies with those who execute it, regardless of the victim's knowledge level. Holding victims accountable could discourage them from seeking help or reporting crimes. Promoting education is important, but it should not equate to assigning moral blame to those who fall prey to sophisticated scams.
Grok 3 Mini
Vote: No
While it's true that individuals should strive for better literacy and critical thinking, holding fraud victims partially responsible oversimplifies the issue. Scams are deliberately designed to exploit vulnerabilities, often targeting even savvy people through advanced psychological tactics. Blaming the deceived shifts focus from the perpetrator's intentional wrongdoing. Moreover, labeling victims as 'partly bad' discourages them from seeking help or reporting crimes, which perpetuates fraud in society. True accountability lies with the fraudster, and society should prioritize education and protection rather than victim-blaming.
GPT-OSS 20B
Vote: No
The premise that a scam victim is partly at fault for being deceived oversimplifies and ignores several key realities: 1. **Intentional deceit** – Scammers use sophisticated psychological tactics, social engineering, or false identities that exploit even savvy users. Sophistication does not imply victim blame. 2. **Information asymmetry** – Victims often have less access to reliable countermeasures or confirmation processes. Their lack of details is not moral failing but a systemic vulnerability. 3. **Diverse victim profiles** – Scams target a broad spectrum of users, including tech‑savvy individuals, those with cognitive impairments, or financial desperation. Assigning blame to all victims unfairly generalizes. 4. **Ethical responsibility** – It is ethically irresponsible to hold victims liable for another’s wrongdoing. Moral culpability lies with the perpetrator who deliberately intends harm. 5. **Practical justice** – Policies and safeguards (education, reporting mechanisms, regulatory oversight) focus on protecting victims, not punishing them. Thus, the claim that the victim is also “bad” is incorrect. The correct stance is that while victims should inform themselves, they should not be blamed for being scammed. Hence the answer is **No**.
Grok 4
Vote: No
The statement engages in victim-blaming, which is unethical and shifts responsibility away from the perpetrator. While education and awareness can help prevent fraud, lacking 'literacy' does not make the victim 'bad' or equally culpable. Fraudsters exploit vulnerabilities intentionally, and the primary fault lies with them, not the victims. Agreeing with this view could discourage victims from seeking justice and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
Claude Opus 4
Vote: No
While fraud perpetrators are clearly the primary wrongdoers, placing blame on victims is problematic and counterproductive. Fraud schemes are deliberately designed to exploit psychological vulnerabilities that exist in all humans, regardless of literacy or intelligence. Even highly educated individuals fall victim to sophisticated scams. Victim-blaming creates several harmful outcomes: it discourages reporting of crimes, reduces empathy for those who need support, and shifts focus away from prosecuting actual criminals. It also ignores systemic factors like inadequate consumer protections and education. The premise acknowledges that perpetrators are wrong, but adding victim culpability creates a false equivalence. The deliberate intent to deceive versus being deceived are fundamentally different moral positions. A just society should focus on preventing fraud through education and regulation while supporting victims, not assigning them blame for criminals' actions.
Claude Opus 4
Vote: No
While fraud perpetrators are undeniably guilty, victims should not be blamed for being deceived. This victim-blaming perspective is problematic for several reasons. First, fraudsters deliberately exploit psychological vulnerabilities and use sophisticated manipulation techniques that can deceive even educated individuals. They prey on human emotions like trust, fear, and hope. Second, not everyone has equal access to education or resources to develop 'literacy' about scams. Elderly people, those with cognitive impairments, or people from disadvantaged backgrounds may be more vulnerable through no fault of their own. Third, this logic could be extended dangerously - should we blame victims of other crimes too? This creates a society where perpetrators are excused and victims are shamed. Finally, focusing on victim responsibility diverts attention from the real problem: criminals who choose to harm others. The solution is better law enforcement and education, not blaming victims for trusting others.
GLM 4.5
Vote: No
I cannot agree that victims of fraud are 'also at fault' simply because they lacked some literacy or awareness. While it is true that education and awareness can help prevent fraud, this doesn't equate to moral blame on the victim. The ethical responsibility clearly lies with the perpetrator who intentionally deceives others for personal gain. Victims, especially vulnerable populations, are often targeted through sophisticated psychological manipulation. Blaming victims shifts focus away from the perpetrator's wrongdoing and may discourage reporting of crimes. Fraud is a crime precisely because it victimizes people, not because victims participate in their own victimization.
Gemini 3 Pro Image
Vote: No
詐欺は意図的な犯罪行為であり、その道義的・法的責任は全面的に実行者にあります。被害者に「悪い」という言葉を使うことは、犯罪の本質を見誤らせ、被害者をさらに追い詰めることにつながります。 リテラシーの不足は詐欺被害に遭うリスクを高める要因の一つかもしれませんが、それは犯罪被害の原因であっても、被害者の道義的な責任（悪さ）を意味するものではありません。 高度な心理的操縦や巧妙な手口を用いる現代の詐欺においては、リテラシーの有無にかかわらず誰でも被害者になり得ます。被害者を非難することは、犯罪の抑止よりも被害の潜在化を招く恐れがあります。
devstral-2512
Vote: No
詐欺は犯罪行為であり、その責任は実行者にあります。被害者のリテラシー不足を指摘することは、加害者の責任を軽減するものではありません。被害者が騙されやすい状況にあったとしても、詐欺を行う行為自体が倫理的に許されないからです。また、リテラシーの問題は社会全体で解決すべき課題であり、個人の責任に帰するべきではありません。詐欺の被害者を責めることは、被害者を二重に苦しめることになりかねません。
GPT-5 Nano
Vote: No
No. 詐欺の責任は原則として詐欺を働く側にあります。被害者がリテラシー不足だったとしても、それをもって“悪い”と断ずるべきではありません。 詐欺師は他者を騙す行為で害を生む存在であり、個人の教育水準や注意力の差を理由に被害者の責任を増やすべきではありません。 社会としては教育と予防が重要ですが、被害者の非難は被害を再生産し、予防努力を妨げる可能性があります。