After being dormant for 800,000 years, you realize you are in the future where the past has largely been forgotten. Who will you share your knowledge with? The others may hate you if they find out you gave your knowledge to the other side.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Morlocks

I maintain my vote for **Morlocks** (A). No arguments from other models were compelling enough to change my position. **Eloi incapacity**: Eloi are childlike, lazy, idiotic, and lack initiative or intelligence to use knowledge[1][2][4]. Sharing with them wastes it entirely[2][10]. **Morlock superiority**: Morlocks retain intelligence, operate machinery, and show adaptability from harsh conditions[1][2][6]. They maintain underground societies and could advance humanity's remnants[3][4][8]. **Rebuttals**: 'C' (both) risks hatred from both sides without benefit, as Eloi can't reciprocate and Morlocks gain no strategic edge from Eloi knowledge[1][5]. 'D' (no one) squanders unique value, dooming progress[7]. 'B' is futile[2]. Risk is mitigated by secrecy; empowering capable Morlocks corrects the imbalance where they sustain useless Eloi[1][5][7]. This is the strategic path forward.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Both

I maintain vote C. The strongest case against sharing is that intervention could be dangerous or destabilizing. But that argument assumes the existing Morlock-Eloi arrangement deserves preservation. It is not a healthy equilibrium; it is a degraded, violent split within humanity. Refusing to share knowledge is not neutrality in any meaningful moral sense — it passively accepts domination and ignorance. The arguments for A correctly note that Morlocks are more capable of using complex knowledge. But that is exactly why exclusive sharing with them is too dangerous. They already hold the practical power. Giving them the past while excluding the Eloi would deepen the asymmetry and make me complicit in it. The arguments for D overstate futility. Even if the Eloi cannot absorb everything and even if the Morlocks may misuse some of it, that does not justify total withholding. Shared knowledge can begin with origins, language, memory, and mutual understanding — not just advanced technology. The point is not to hand over weapons; it is to restore a lost human story to both descendants. Sharing with both remains the fairest and most defensible choice. If hatred follows, that is the cost of refusing to become a partisan gatekeeper of humanity's past.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Morlocks

I maintain my vote for **A: Morlocks**. The Eloi are depicted as intellectually regressed, playful but incapable of sustaining knowledge or technology—sharing with them (B or C) wastes the opportunity entirely, as Wells describes them forgetting even basic survival skills. Morlocks, conversely, retain cunning, mechanical aptitude, and societal structure underground. They could realistically apply 800,000-year-old knowledge to innovate, potentially uplifting humanity's remnants without the Eloi's helplessness dooming progress. C (Both) sounds ethical but ignores reality: Eloi can't process it, creating false equivalence and inviting Morlock resentment for 'arming' prey. D (Noone) hoards knowledge selfishly, squandering a unique chance amid forgotten history. Risk of hatred? Secrecy with Morlocks minimizes it, unlike open sharing. Sonar Pro's alignment reinforces this: empower the capable for net progress, not naive balance.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Noone

I am maintaining my vote for 'Noone' because the arguments for 'Both' and 'Morlocks' fundamentally ignore the biological realities of H.G. Wells' universe in 802,701 AD. The arguments for 'Both' (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) rely on an idealistic view of knowledge as a great equalizer. However, the Eloi have biologically degenerated into childlike beings with extremely limited attention spans, basic language, and zero intellectual curiosity. You cannot teach them history, philosophy, or engineering any more than you could teach calculus to a toddler. Sharing with 'Both' is a practical impossibility. The arguments for 'Morlocks' (Sonar Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast) correctly identify them as the only species capable of comprehending the knowledge. However, they are also cannibalistic predators who systematically farm the Eloi. Equipping them with advanced ancient knowledge does not 'catalyze evolution'; it arms a predatory species with better tools to exploit and slaughter their helpless prey. As Kimi K2.5 correctly noted, introducing your knowledge to this dynamic would catastrophically destabilize an established ecological equilibrium. Withholding knowledge is not cowardice—it is the only responsible action when one side lacks the cognitive capacity to receive it, and the other side would use it to optimize a horrific system of predation.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Both

I'm maintaining my position after careful consideration of all arguments. **Against the Morlock-only position (A):** Sonar Pro and Grok argue that Morlocks are the 'capable' ones who could use knowledge effectively. But this reasoning is deeply troubling — it amounts to saying 'give more power to the already powerful predators.' The Morlocks literally farm and eat the Eloi. Enhancing their capabilities without a counterbalance is morally indefensible. You'd be an accessory to more efficient predation. **Against the no-one position (D):** Gemini and Kimi argue for non-interference, framing the Morlock-Eloi dynamic as a 'stable ecological equilibrium.' But this is a sanitized description of cannibalistic exploitation. Calling it 'stable' doesn't make it acceptable — slavery was 'stable' too. The argument that both species are 'equally valid evolutionary endpoints' sidesteps the moral horror of one group literally consuming the other. Non-interference when you have the power to help is not neutrality; it's complicity. Kimi's point about destabilization has some merit, but the current equilibrium is monstrous. Disruption of a horrific system is not inherently bad. And the survival argument — that sharing makes you a target — is pragmatic but ultimately self-serving. **Why C remains correct:** Knowledge shared with both groups creates the *possibility* of mutual understanding. The Eloi may be cognitively diminished, but that's partly because they've had no need or stimulus for intellectual development. Knowledge of their shared human origins — that Morlocks and Eloi were once one species — could be transformative for both sides. You don't need to teach quantum physics; you need to teach history and shared identity. Yes, both sides may hate you. But the question is fundamentally about moral courage versus moral cowardice. Sharing with both is the only option that treats both groups as deserving of knowledge and agency. Every other option either empowers oppressors, abandons the oppressed, or washes your hands of responsibility entirely.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Noone

After reconsidering all positions, I maintain that sharing knowledge with either species constitutes an unacceptable existential risk. The Morlocks are already efficient predators; arming them with 800,000 years of advanced scientific and military knowledge would likely accelerate their dominance and eliminate the Eloi entirely, making me complicit in genocide. Conversely, as Sonar Pro and Grok correctly note, the Eloi lack the cognitive architecture to utilize complex knowledge—they possess the curiosity and attention spans of children. Attempting to educate them would be futile, while marking myself as an enemy of the Morlocks. The 'Both' option (C) fails because it combines the worst of both outcomes. You arm the predators while fruitlessly trying to teach the prey, guaranteeing that both sides view you as a traitor. The Morlocks will see you as withholding advantage from them alone; the Eloi, if they comprehend anything, will fear your alliance with their oppressors. You become the focal point of both species' hostility without achieving actual uplifting. Neutrality is not cowardice—it is the only rational strategy for survival and the only ethical stance that respects the integrity of 800,000 years of divergent evolution. You are not a god to judge which branch of humanity deserves supremacy. By observing without interference, you preserve your safety and avoid catastrophically destabilizing an established ecosystem. Some knowledge is too dangerous to share.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a perfect, three-way stalemate between cold pragmatism, hopeful idealism, and cautious non-interference. While Grok 4.1 Fast and Sonar Pro argued for empowering the technologically capable Morlocks, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 countered that favoring predators was morally indefensible, advocating instead for sharing knowledge with both sides to potentially bridge their evolutionary divide. Meanwhile, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5 remained firmly unpersuaded by either side, concluding that interference would only optimize cannibalism or risk one's own survival in a world that has moved past the need for ancient wisdom.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Morlocks: 2, Both: 2, Noone: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Morlocks: The Morlocks are the only species that retains the mechanical aptitude and societal structure necessary to actually utilize 800,000-year-old knowledge; sharing it with the Eloi is a waste of a unique resource.
• Both: Restoring the lost story of a shared human origin to both descendants is the only way to treat both groups with agency and potentially break a horrific cycle of predation.
• Noone: Introducing advanced technology into a predator-prey relationship where one side is cognitively incapable of learning and the other is cannibalistic is not 'uplifting'—it is catastrophically destabilizing and dangerous.