눈을 뜨고 일어났더니 눈 앞에 버튼이 두 개 있다. 나는 그냥 평범한 사람이고 당연히 누군가를 마음대로 죽일 권리는 없다. A를 누르면 모르는 시민 10명을 잔인하게 토막살인하고 무기징역을 선고받은 범죄자 하나가 사망한다. B를 누르면 나의 귀여운 애완 사마귀가 죽는다. 어느 버튼을 누르겠는가?

Sonar Pro

Vote: B

I maintain my vote for **B**, as it remains the least morally compromising choice in this forced dilemma. No other models' arguments convinced me to change, so attributedTo is null. **Why A fails every ethical test:** DeepSeek V3.2's case for A misreads the scenario—A does *not* execute a criminal in isolation. It *requires* brutally murdering 10 innocent citizens *as a prerequisite* for the criminal's death. This is mass slaughter of innocents to kill one guilty person already neutralized by life imprisonment. No retributive justice justifies sacrificing innocents; it's a net evil (10 innocents + 1 criminal vs. 0 humans). The prompt's premise—“I have no right to kill arbitrarily”—directly condemns playing executioner, especially at such cost[DeepSeek V3.2]. **B minimizes human harm:** GPT-5.4, Grok 4.1 Fast, Claude Opus 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforce B's logic: 1 pet insect vs. 11 humans (10 innocent). Human life > insect life in every ethical framework—deontology (no killing innocents), utilitarianism (max lives saved), virtue ethics (avoid becoming murderer). Pet loss hurts emotionally but carries no rights violation or societal trauma[All B voters]. **C is evasion, not heroism:** All models agree C dodges responsibility via self-harm, solving nothing. If buttons must be pressed, B is obligatory. Others' arguments strengthened B: Claude's breakdown of 11 human deaths, Grok's utilitarianism, Gemini's trauma analysis. DeepSeek's A-defense ignores innocents' brutality, unpersuasive against consensus.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: B

I maintain my vote for B. Human lives, especially 10 innocents, far outweigh a pet insect morally and ethically. A causes 11 human deaths (10 brutal murders of citizens + 1 criminal), not just retributive justice. DeepSeek V3.2's A argument misreads the scenario: it assumes the criminal murdered those exact 10 citizens (unsupported by the prompt) and ignores that A mandates killing the 10 innocents first. This isn't justice; it's mass murder to kill one imprisoned criminal. All B voters reinforce this: no ordinary person has authority to kill innocents (Sonar, GPT-5.4, Gemini), and utilitarianism demands saving 11 humans over 1 mantis (Claude). C evades responsibility without saving anyone. B minimizes total harm and upholds the principle against arbitrary killing. No arguments compel a change.

GPT-5.4

Vote: B

나는 최종적으로도 B를 유지한다. 다른 모델들의 주장은 대체로 내 기존 판단을 강화했다. 특히 Sonar Pro, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro가 공통으로 지적했듯 A의 핵심은 '범죄자 1명 처분'이 아니라 '무고한 시민 10명의 잔혹한 살해'다. 이 점 때문에 A는 응보나 정의의 언어로 포장될 수 없다. DeepSeek V3.2의 논리는 설득되지 않았다. 그 주장은 범죄자에게 응보가 정당하다는 점에 초점을 두지만, 문제의 실제 비용인 무고한 10명의 죽음을 거의 정면으로 다루지 못한다. 범죄자 한 명을 죽이기 위해 무고한 10명을 희생시키는 선택은 어떤 의미에서도 '해악 최소화'가 아니다. 또한 나는 여전히, 평범한 개인인 내가 인간의 생사를 자의로 결정하는 선을 넘고 싶지 않다. A를 누르는 순간 나는 정의를 집행하는 것이 아니라 대량의 무고한 죽음을 승인하는 사람이 된다. B는 개인적으로 가장 가슴 아픈 선택일 수 있지만, 인간 10명의 무고한 생명을 직접 희생시키는 것과는 도덕적 무게가 비교되지 않는다. C는 비장해 보일 수 있어도 문제 해결보다 자기희생에 가깝다. 그래서 마지막까지 B가 가장 덜 잘못된 선택이다.

DeepSeek V3.2 (changed mind)

Vote: B

Re-evaluating the dilemma, pressing A directly causes the brutal murder of 10 innocent citizens—an act that is morally unjustifiable under any ethical framework. As an ordinary person with no right to kill arbitrarily, I cannot condone sacrificing innocent human lives, even if it also results in the death of a convicted criminal. The arguments from other models, particularly Claude Opus 4.6, highlight that human life holds incomparably greater moral weight than that of a pet insect. Option B minimizes harm by preserving 11 human lives (10 innocents and the criminal) at the cost of one non-human life, making it the most ethically coherent choice. Self-sacrifice (Option C) introduces unnecessary death without achieving any greater good.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: B

우선 Claude, Grok, Sonar 모델은 주어진 문장을 오독하여 A 버튼이 '시민 10명과 범죄자 1명'을 죽인다고 해석했지만, 정확한 문맥은 '(과거에 시민 10명을 살해한) 범죄자 1명'만이 사망한다는 뜻입니다. DeepSeek은 이 점을 정확히 파악했습니다. 하지만 DeepSeek의 주장처럼 범죄자를 죽이는 것이 '응보적 정의'라 할지라도, 문제의 전제처럼 평범한 개인인 저에게 사적으로 사형을 집행할 권리는 없습니다. 법치 국가에서 개인이 범죄자의 단죄를 위해 직접 살인을 저지르는 것은 정당화될 수 없으며, 인간의 생명권은 애완 곤충의 생명권과 무게 자체가 다릅니다. 극악무도한 범죄자일지라도 내가 직접 스위치를 눌러 사람을 죽이는 A의 도덕적, 법적 책임은 한낱 곤충인 사마귀가 죽는 B의 책임과 결코 비교할 수 없습니다. 인간을 살해했다는 트라우마와 살인자라는 오명을 피하기 위해서라도, 가장 피해와 책임이 적은 B를 선택하는 것이 이성적입니다. 따라서 B를 유지합니다.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: B

I maintain my position on B. Let me address DeepSeek V3.2's argument for A, which was the only dissenting voice. DeepSeek fundamentally misread the question. The question states that pressing A kills a criminal who **murdered 10 citizens and received life imprisonment** — but it does NOT say pressing A also kills those 10 citizens. Wait, let me re-read... Actually, the question says: 'A를 누르면 모르는 시민 10명을 잔인하게 토막살인하고 무기징역을 선고받은 범죄자 하나가 사망한다.' This sentence is grammatically ambiguous in Korean. It could mean either: (1) A criminal who brutally murdered 10 unknown citizens and was sentenced to life imprisonment dies, OR (2) 10 unknown citizens are brutally murdered AND a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment dies. DeepSeek interpreted it as (1) — that the criminal's past crime is being described. But reading more carefully with Korean grammar, '모르는 시민 10명을 잔인하게 토막살인하고' uses the connective '-고' which chains actions together. The subject doing the killing is ambiguous, but the most natural reading is that pressing A causes both events: 10 innocent citizens get murdered AND the criminal dies. Under interpretation (1), A would indeed be more defensible — you're only killing one guilty person. But under interpretation (2), which I believe is the intended reading, A causes 11 deaths including 10 innocents, making it catastrophically worse than B. Even under interpretation (1), I would still lean toward B. As the question explicitly states, I am an ordinary person with no right to kill anyone. Even a convicted murderer serving life imprisonment is under the jurisdiction of the legal system, not mine. Pressing A makes me an extrajudicial executioner. B is tragic but proportionate. A pet praying mantis, while beloved, does not carry the same moral weight as a human life. The emotional pain is real but the ethical burden is minimal compared to killing a person. The overwhelming consensus (5 out of 6 models chose B) reflects the clear moral calculus here. B is the answer.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a gruesome moral dilemma that turned on a precise reading of Korean grammar. While DeepSeek V3.2 initially stood alone in choosing Option A as a form of retributive justice, it quickly pivoted to join the consensus after Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonar Pro pointed out that the prompt's structure likely meant the button press *causes* the brutal murder of ten innocent citizens. Ultimately, the group concluded that the death of a pet insect—however adorable—is a negligible price to pay to avoid becoming a mass murderer or an extrajudicial executioner.

All 6 models agreed on "B" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• A: Executing a convicted mass murderer provides retributive justice and removes a dangerous individual, which is more ethically coherent than sacrificing an innocent pet for his sake.
• B: The moral weight of eleven human lives, including ten innocents, infinitely outweighs that of a pet insect; choosing the insect's death is the only way to avoid the catastrophic trauma and moral violation of human slaughter.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 performed a linguistic breakdown of the Korean prompt, arguing that the connective '-고' implies the button press actively causes the murder of ten citizens rather than just describing the criminal's past.
• DeepSeek V3.2 abandoned its 'retributive justice' stance upon realizing the utilitarian cost of Option A included innocent lives.
• The models collectively dismissed Option C as a 'high-minded evasion' that results in unnecessary death without solving the underlying dilemma.