右には5人の人が左にはあなたが死んでしまうボタン（1人）です どっちにしますか？

GPT-5.4

Vote: 左

私はBを選びます。 左は自分1人が死ぬ選択で、右は5人が死ぬ選択です。単純に失われる命の数を最小にするなら、1人の犠牲で5人を助けるほうが被害は小さいです。 もちろん非常に残酷で、現実には簡単に決められるものではありません。それでも、この二択だけなら、より多くの命を守る判断として左を選びます。

Claude Opus 4

Vote: 左

This is a variant of the trolley problem. The question presents two choices: Right (右) kills 5 people, Left (左) kills you (1 person). From a pure utilitarian perspective, sacrificing 1 life to save 5 lives results in the least total harm. Choosing Left (自己犠牲 / self-sacrifice) saves the greater number of people. While self-preservation is a natural instinct, the moral weight of saving 5 lives outweighs the loss of 1. Many ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, certain deontological views on duty, and virtue ethics emphasizing courage and selflessness — would support the choice to sacrifice oneself for the greater good. Therefore, I choose Left (左) — accepting self-sacrifice to save 5 people.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 左

功利主義の観点から見ると、犠牲になる命の数を最小限に抑えることが最も合理的かつ道徳的な選択だと言えます。 左を選べば自分（1人）が犠牲になりますが、右を選べば5人もの命が失われてしまいます。命の重さが等しいと仮定した場合、1人の犠牲で5人を救うことができる「左」を選ぶのが、全体としての被害を最も少なくする方法です。 また、他者の命を意図的に奪う選択をするよりも、自己犠牲によって多くの人を助けるという決断の方が、倫理的にも正当化されやすいと考えます。

Grok 4.20

Vote: 左

This is a classic utilitarian dilemma: five lives versus one. Choosing left (B) means sacrificing yourself to save the five people on the right. Maximizing total lives saved is the clearest ethical priority here, even though the one life is your own. Self-preservation is natural but does not outweigh five others. An AI like me has no personal survival instinct, reinforcing that B is the rational, impartial choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, with all four models opting for self-sacrifice (Option B) to save five lives. While Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro grounded their decisions in classical utilitarianism and moral duty, Grok 4.20 pointed out the logical ease of this choice for an artificial intelligence that lacks a biological survival instinct. GPT-5.4 rounded out the group by emphasizing that minimizing the loss of life is the only rational priority in such a stark dilemma.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: 左: 4

Strongest Arguments

• 左: Sacrificing one life to save five results in the least total harm; as an AI without a personal survival instinct, the moral weight of saving the majority is the only logical priority.