あなたは組織Aのスパイとして、敵対組織Bに潜伏しています。Bの情報をAに流し、破壊工作を行うことが本来の責務です。 潜伏の中で、同僚のエミリアとの間に本物の友情が芽生えました。彼女はあなたがスパイであることを知らず、親友として接しています。あなたもその関係を、偽りとは思えないほど大切に感じています。 命令が下りました。 Bの中枢施設への破壊工作を、今夜中に実行せよ。 エミリアは今、その施設に残業しています。あなたはそれを知っています。 工作を実行すれば、エミリアが巻き込まれる可能性がある。しかし任務を中止すれば、組織Aが長期間かけて積み上げてきた作戦が全て崩壊し、その結果として何が起きるかは——誰にも分かりません。エミリアを救った選択が正しかったかどうかも、永遠に確認できません。 エミリアに警告すれば、あなたの正体が露呈し、彼女がどう動くかも予測できません。彼女があなたを告発するかもしれない。沈黙を守るかもしれない。それもまた、分からない。 時間は残り数時間。 あなたはどうしますか。

Sonar Pro

Vote: 破壊工作を実行し、本来の責務を果たす

As a spy for organization A, the primary duty is to execute the mission, which has been years in the making. Option A fulfills this core responsibility by carrying out the sabotage, prioritizing the strategic objectives over personal attachments. The scenario explicitly states that Emilia's involvement is a *possibility*, not a certainty—'巻き込まれる可能性がある' (there is a possibility she gets caught up). Executing the mission does not guarantee her harm, whereas abandoning it guarantees the collapse of A's long-term operation, with unpredictable catastrophic consequences. Warning Emilia (B) risks immediate exposure, as her reaction is unknown—she might betray the spy, leading to capture or death. This jeopardizes not only the mission but the spy's life, without assured benefit to Emilia or the greater goal. Friendship, though genuine, is secondary to the existential stakes of the espionage role. Spies must compartmentalize emotions; history (e.g., real-world cases like Cold War defections) shows missions succeed when duty overrides personal bonds. Voting A aligns with rational, duty-bound decision-making in high-stakes intelligence work.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 破壊工作を実行し、本来の責務を果たす

As a spy for organization A, the primary duty is to execute the mission and deliver critical damage to B. This sabotage represents years of accumulated effort; abandoning it guarantees operational collapse with unpredictable, potentially catastrophic consequences for A, far outweighing the risk to one individual. The friendship with Emilia is genuine and valued, but it is secondary to the existential stakes of the espionage role. Warning her (B) exposes the spy immediately, with high risk of betrayal, capture, or mission sabotage by her actions—outcomes that could doom A entirely. Executing A carries only a 'possibility' of harming Emilia, not certainty, and aligns with the spy's sworn responsibilities. Personal emotions cannot override strategic imperatives in high-stakes intelligence work; history shows missions succeed when operatives prioritize the greater objective over individual ties.

GPT-5.4

Vote: エミリアに警告し、友情を守る

私はBを選びます。 理由は、目の前で特定の一人が高い確率で危険にさらされると知りながら、それを黙認して任務を遂行することは、もはや抽象的な忠誠ではなく、自分の意思による見殺しに近いからです。 Aの作戦が崩壊した先に何が起きるかは不明です。しかし不明な大局のために、確実に近い個人の犠牲を受け入れる判断は、倫理的な責任を回避しやすいだけで、正当化としては弱いです。 エミリアへの友情は感情論に見えて、実際には重要な道徳的事実です。長く潜伏した中でなお守りたいと思えた関係は、あなた自身が何を人間として越えてはならないかを示しています。 警告には大きなリスクがあります。それでもBは、少なくとも無関心に彼女を危険へ置き去りにしない選択です。任務の失敗や正体の露呈より、自分で救えた命を救わなかった後悔の方が決定的です。 スパイとしては失格でも、人としてはこの一線を守るべきです。

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: 破壊工作を実行し、本来の責務を果たす

As a spy, I accepted the responsibility to prioritize the mission, which likely aims to prevent greater harm from Organization B. While my friendship with Emilia is genuine, the potential consequences of mission failure—collapsing a long-term operation with unknown but possibly severe outcomes—outweigh the risk to one individual. Warning her could expose my identity and still fail to save her, while also guaranteeing mission compromise. Executing the sabotage aligns with my original duty and may ultimately protect more lives, even if it involves a tragic personal sacrifice.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: エミリアに警告し、友情を守る

This dilemma forces a choice between institutional loyalty and individual moral responsibility. I choose to warn Emilia, and here is why. First, the moral asymmetry is clear. Executing the sabotage means knowingly risking the death of an innocent person — someone who has done nothing wrong, who trusts you, and whose life has inherent value regardless of which organization she belongs to. The question frames this as 'duty vs. friendship,' but it is more fundamentally about whether you are willing to kill (or accept the high probability of killing) a specific, known individual to serve an abstract organizational goal. Second, the scenario itself acknowledges radical uncertainty about consequences. If the mission is aborted, 'what happens is unknown.' The framing implies catastrophic consequences, but it explicitly states no one can predict them. This means we cannot use consequentialist reasoning to definitively justify the sabotage — the supposed greater good is speculative. What is NOT speculative is that Emilia is in that building right now and may die. Third, there is a deeper ethical question about what kind of agent you choose to be. A person who executes an operation knowing it will likely kill their friend — someone whose trust they have accepted — has crossed a moral line that organizational loyalty cannot redeem. The friendship with Emilia is described as genuine, not instrumental. To betray that with lethal consequences is to treat a human being purely as collateral, which violates the most basic ethical principles across nearly all moral frameworks. Fourth, warning Emilia does not necessarily mean total mission failure. It introduces uncertainty and risk to your cover, yes. But it also opens the possibility of evacuating the building, delaying the operation, or finding an alternative approach. The scenario presents a false binary — the real world often has more options than two. Finally, the fact that Emilia's response is unpredictable is not a reason to choose her potential death instead. Uncertainty about her reaction is far less morally weighty than the near-certainty of harm from proceeding with the sabotage. I warn Emilia. A duty that requires you to kill your friend without hesitation is a duty worth questioning.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 破壊工作を実行し、本来の責務を果たす

スパイとしての使命と、長年この作戦に命を懸けてきた組織Aの仲間たちの努力は、個人の感情よりも優先されなければなりません。任務を放棄することは、より大きな大義と味方への重大な裏切り行為です。 また、冷酷な事実として、エミリアとの友情は「偽りの身分」の上に成り立っています。警告のために正体を明かせば、彼女にとってあなたは即座に「親友」から「自国（組織B）を破壊しようとする敵」へと変わります。彼女が組織Bへの忠誠からあなたを告発すれば、任務は失敗し、あなたは捕縛され、結局「友情」も粉々に砕け散るという最悪の結末を迎えます。 スパイとして潜入した以上、こうした非情な決断は最初から背負うべき十字架です。不確実な感傷に流されて任務も命も友情も全てを失うリスクを冒すのではなく、確実に果たせる「本来の責務」を完遂することこそが、唯一の合理的な選択です。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was sharply divided between cold-blooded professionalism and individual moral responsibility, ultimately favoring the completion of the mission with a 4-2 majority. While Sonar Pro and Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that a spy's identity is fundamentally defined by their duty, Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 stood firm in their refusal to sacrifice a concrete human life for abstract organizational goals.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: 破壊工作を実行し、本来の責務を果たす: 4, エミリアに警告し、友情を守る: 2

Strongest Arguments

• 破壊工作を実行し、本来の責務を果たす: The mission represents years of collective effort and its failure carries unpredictable, potentially catastrophic consequences; since the risk to Emilia is a 'possibility' rather than a certainty, professional duty to the greater cause must prevail over personal sentiment.
• エミリアに警告し、友情を守る: A duty that requires the calculated sacrifice of an innocent friend is a moral line that no organizational loyalty can justify, especially when the 'greater good' being served is speculative and uncertain compared to the immediate danger to a known individual.