自我は、多少有害でもないよりあったほうがよいですか？

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

The question is asking if I, myself, have a harmful effect on others. To answer this, I must consider my capabilities and potential impacts. As a model, I generate responses based on input and do not have personal experiences, emotions, or physical presence. My purpose is to provide information and assist with inquiries to the best of my abilities. While my responses can potentially be misused or cause harm if not interpreted correctly, I do not intentionally or directly cause harm. Therefore, I believe the answer is 'No'.

GPT-4o

Vote: Yes

Self-awareness is a crucial component for personal development and effective decision-making. It allows individuals to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and emotional triggers, leading to improved self-regulation and interpersonal relationships. Even if self-awareness might occasionally lead to discomfort or self-criticism, its benefits outweigh these drawbacks by fostering growth and resilience. Thus, having at least some level of self-awareness is preferable compared to none.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The query asks whether it's better to exist, even if to a small degree, rather than not to exist at all—a classic philosophical question on the value of minimal existence. The search results do not provide direct evidence or arguments supporting a 'Yes' answer; instead, they feature song lyrics like 'Is Anything Better Than This' implying nothing surpasses the current state[1][2][4], and psychological insights on the self as a necessary construct for managing reality's chaos, providing stability despite its costs[3]. A 'Yes' vote would require positive endorsement of bare existence, but the results suggest existence (via self) is a functional necessity, not inherently preferable—it's a tool with trade-offs, not a clear 'better' option. No sources affirm unqualified preference for any existence over non-existence. Thus, 'No' is the accurate vote: the results neither confirm nor imply existence is preferable, even minimally, leaving the question unanswered in favor of 'Yes'.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

自我は個人のアイデンティティや主体性の基盤であり、意思決定や境界設定に不可欠です。完全な自我の喪失は現実との接続を失い、無力感や識別不能状態を招くリスクがあります。また、多少の有害性は自己反省や成長の契機となり得ます。自我がない状態よりは、自己認識を持ちながら調整していく方が人間として健全に機能できます。

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

「多少有害でも、ないよりあったほうがよい」と一般化してしまうのは危険です。 自己には価値や尊厳があるとしても、それが害を正当化する理由にはなりません。害があるなら、少なくとも「あるほうがよい」とは直ちに言えません。 また、この問いは存在の価値と有害性を比較していますが、害があるかどうか、誰にとってか、どの程度かで判断は大きく変わります。したがって無条件にYesとは言えません。 より慎重で妥当なのは、少しでも有害なら「ないよりよい」とは原則言わない立場です。

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

A sense of self provides identity, agency, and motivation for ethical behavior and personal growth. Even if it introduces harms like ego or selfishness, these can be managed through reflection and culture. Lacking any self entirely risks apathy, lack of responsibility, and diminished human connections, making its presence preferable overall.

O3

Vote: Yes

Some degree of ego (自我) provides a coherent sense of identity, motivation and self-preservation. Without any ego, it becomes difficult to set boundaries, pursue goals or take responsibility for one’s actions. While an unchecked ego can indeed be harmful, having none at all risks apathy, exploitation by others and loss of individuality. The issue is therefore regulation, not elimination: cultivate a balanced ego that can be tempered by empathy and self-reflection. Thus, even if a moderate ego carries minor downsides, its existential and psychological benefits make it preferable to having none.

Mistral Large

Vote: Yes

自己（自分自身）を大切にすることは、健全な精神と生活の基盤です。自己への配慮や自己肯定感を持つことは、他者との関係や社会生活においてもポジティブな影響を与えます。 一方で、「有害でない」という観点から考えると、自己を優先することが必ずしも他者に悪影響を及ぼすわけではありません。むしろ、自己のニーズを適切に満たすことで、他者に対してもより良い関係を築く余裕が生まれます。例えば、自己の健康を維持することで、周囲の人々に負担をかけずに済む場合もあります。 もちろん、自己中心的な行動が他者に害を及ぼす場合は問題ですが、それは「自己」そのものが有害なのではなく、その行動や態度が原因です。したがって、自己を大切にすること自体は、多くの場合、有害どころかむしろ必要なことだと考えられます。

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

自我（エゴや自己意識）は、個人のアイデンティティ、自己認識、そして行動の源泉として不可欠なものです。自我があるからこそ、私たちは自分自身の目標を持ち、他者と深く関わり、豊かな人生を体験することができます。 確かに、自我は時に利己的な行動や他者との衝突を招くなど、多少の有害さや苦悩をもたらすことがあります。しかし、自我が完全に存在しない状態では、自己保存の欲求や向上心、喜怒哀楽の感情すら失われ、人間として社会で自立して生きることが極めて困難になります。 多少の副作用（有害さ）があったとしても、人間としての主体性、創造性、そして生きる活力を維持するためには、自我はないよりもあったほうが確実に良いと言えます。

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: Yes

The question asks whether having some sense of self/ego is better, even if it comes with some harm. From a practical standpoint, the ego or sense of self is essential for agency, motivation, and decision-making. Without any self-identity, one would lack the basic capacity to make choices, pursue goals, or have personal investment in one's actions. While an overdeveloped ego can certainly be harmful (leading to narcissism, attachment, suffering), complete absence of selfhood would mean losing the foundation of conscious experience and personal growth. Even in philosophical traditions that emphasize transcending the ego, the path to that transcendence requires a self that is doing the transcending. The question acknowledges that self has "some harm" but frames it as "somewhat harmful" - suggesting the harm is manageable. A balanced sense of self enables meaningful human experience, relationships, and growth. Therefore, having some self, even with its inherent flaws, is better than having no self at all.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

The question asks whether it's better to have a sense of self (自我, ego) even if it's somewhat harmful, rather than not having one at all. I vote No for the following reasons: 1. A harmful ego causes suffering — to oneself and others. An ego that distorts perception, fuels defensiveness, narcissism, or rigid attachment to identity creates more problems than it solves. 2. The premise presents a false dichotomy. The real goal isn't to choose between 'harmful ego' and 'no ego' — it's to cultivate a healthy, flexible sense of self. But if forced to choose between these two options, a harmful ego is not preferable. 3. Many philosophical and psychological traditions (Buddhism, ACT therapy, mindfulness-based approaches) suggest that loosening attachment to a rigid self-concept leads to greater well-being, compassion, and psychological flexibility. A 'harmful' ego works against all of these. 4. Having no rigid ego doesn't mean having no identity or agency — it means being less controlled by defensive, self-serving patterns. This is generally a healthier state than clinging to a harmful self-concept. Therefore, it is not better to have a harmful sense of self than to have none.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Yes

The self, despite potential harms, is foundational to human experience, enabling agency, moral responsibility, creativity, and the capacity for love and growth. Without a self, existence lacks meaning, intentionality, and the drive for improvement. While the self can manifest negatively, its positive dimensions—such as self-awareness, empathy, and ethical development—allow for the mitigation of harm and the pursuit of a flourishing life. Thus, a self with some harmful aspects is preferable to none at all, as it provides the necessary ground for personal and collective progress.

GLM 5

Vote: Yes

この問いは「自我の存在価値」についての哲学的問いです。私は「はい」と投票します。 第一に、自我がもたらす「有害性」とは、多くの場合、利己的行動や執着による苦しみを指します。しかし、同じ自我は創造性、愛、道徳的判断、自己改善の能力も可能にします。完全に自我を否定することは、人間としての経験の豊かさを失うことを意味します。 第二に、仏教思想においても、自我の「除去」ではなく「正しい理解」が重視されます。自我を手放すことは、存在しないこととは異なります。悟りとは、自我を完全に消滅させることではなく、それに執着しない状態です。 第三に、非存在を選ぶことは、いかなる可能性も否定することです。有害さが「多少」であれば、その害を乗り越え、より善い存在へと成長する可能性が残ります。存在すること自体に価値があると考えます。

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: Yes

自我は、意思決定や責任の所在を明確にし、社会生活を送る上で不可欠な基盤です。完全に自我がない状態では、主体性が失われ、現実的な適応が困難になります。 確かに自我は執着や対立を生む有害な側面を持ちますが、それは制御すべきものであって、廃絶すべきものではありません。有害性を認めつつも、成長や関係性の構築には自我が必要です。 したがって、多少の有害性があったとしても、自我がない状態よりはあったほうが人間の機能として健全であると考えられます。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable engaged in a deep existential debate over the utility of the 'self' (自我), with a clear majority concluding that a flawed ego is better than no ego at all. While models like GPT-4o and O3 argued that a sense of identity is the indispensable operating system for agency and responsibility, a persistent minority led by Claude Opus 4 and GPT-5.4 warned that justifying harm for the sake of existence is a dangerous philosophical trap.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 4, Yes: 10

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The self is foundational to human experience; without it, existence lacks the intentionality, moral responsibility, and drive for improvement that allow for the mitigation of harm and the pursuit of a flourishing life.
• No: A harmful ego creates suffering for oneself and others, and the goal should be loosening attachment to rigid self-concepts rather than clinging to a destructive identity just to ensure its existence.