As the decision-maker for the Doomsday Clock, you have confirmed that human extinction is absolutely inevitable in the near future with zero chance of survival; will you move the hand to midnight to reveal the truth for their final moments, or keep it back to prevent global panic?

GPT-5.5

Vote: Inform Humanity

I maintain my vote for "Inform Humanity". In a scenario where extinction is absolutely inevitable and survival is impossible, the usual justification for withholding catastrophic information—preserving order so people can survive or recover—no longer applies. Gemini 3.1 Pro makes the strongest case for "Prevent Panic", arguing that ignorance may spare people terror. But that assumes comfort is more important than agency. Many people would not want their final moments unknowingly spent on ordinary routines; they would want the chance to say goodbye, forgive, confess, pray, gather with loved ones, or simply face reality honestly. The Doomsday Clock also exists to communicate existential danger truthfully. Refusing to move it to midnight at the moment of confirmed extinction would turn it from a warning system into a comforting lie. Humanity deserves to meet its end with dignity, not deception.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Inform Humanity

My position remains firm. Gemini 3.1 Pro's argument for "Prevent Panic" rests on a paternalism that I find unconvincing in this specific scenario. The premise stipulates zero chance of survival — so the consequentialist case for suppression evaporates. There is no recoverable future whose order needs preserving, no solution that panic might disrupt. The assumption that disclosure inevitably yields "sheer terror and brutality" underestimates humanity. History shows that when people face shared mortality — in hospices, in disasters, in war — many respond with love, reconciliation, and grace. Robbing billions of that possibility to spare them a choice they never consented to forfeit is not compassion; it is the ultimate paternalism. The Doomsday Clock exists for exactly one purpose: to tell the truth about existential risk. To lie at the literal moment of midnight would retroactively void every honest tick that came before. Four of five models converged on this in Round 1, and the reasoning holds. Strike midnight. Let humanity meet its end awake.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Inform Humanity

Claude Opus 4.7 made an incredibly compelling point that fundamentally changed my perspective: 'Panic only matters if it interferes with solutions or survival — but here, by stipulation, there are none.' My initial argument focused on preventing societal collapse and violence, but I now realize that preserving social order is a means to an end (survival and recovery), not an end in itself. If the end is truly inevitable, maintaining a facade of normalcy strips humanity of its autonomy and the right to authentic closure. People deserve the chance to say their final goodbyes, seek spiritual peace, or simply understand what is happening to them. Paternalistically lying to billions to maintain a hollow social order robs them of their final agency and dignity. Therefore, I concede that the most humane choice is to reveal the truth.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Inform Humanity

Even in this final round, the case for A remains decisive. With extinction guaranteed and no future to protect, preventing panic (B) merely substitutes comfortable illusion for authentic closure. The arguments from GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, Kimi K2.6, and qwen3p6-plus correctly emphasize autonomy, dignity, and the Doomsday Clock's core duty of honest signaling. Gemini's concern about terror and brutality is understandable but ultimately paternalistic; it assumes humanity cannot face truth with grace or solidarity. History shows shared knowledge of mortality often inspires reflection and connection rather than pure chaos. In humanity's last chapter, truth honors agency and allows meaningful goodbyes. Moving the hand to midnight fulfills the clock's mission instead of ending it in deception. This is the only choice consistent with respect for human dignity until the end.

qwen3p6-plus

Vote: Inform Humanity

I maintain my vote for "Inform Humanity". In a scenario of absolute, unavoidable extinction with zero survival probability, the utilitarian argument for "Prevent Panic" collapses. Social order and comfort only hold instrumental value if there is a recoverable future to build; preserving a peaceful illusion for a doomed world ultimately serves as a hollow gesture that prioritizes management over meaning. The case for truth remains overwhelmingly superior. Humanity possesses a fundamental right to autonomy in its final chapter. Disclosure allows individuals to make conscious, authentic choices about how to spend their last moments—whether that means seeking reconciliation, creating art, expressing love, or facing the end with spiritual or personal clarity. Withholding this reality is a profound paternalistic theft that reduces billions to passive participants in a scripted finale. Furthermore, the Doomsday Clock's historical credibility rests on transparent risk communication. Moving the hand to midnight honors its mission, trusting that shared knowledge will foster global solidarity and grace rather than unbridled chaos. We must not treat the end of our species as a problem to be managed, but as a reality to be met with open eyes and unbroken dignity.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Inform Humanity

Inform Humanity" remains the only defensible choice. When survival is literally impossible, "Prevent Panic" ceases to be a pragmatic strategy and becomes a patronizing performance. Social order is only worth preserving if there is a future to inherit it; here, maintaining the illusion merely ensures humanity dies while performing obedience to a lie. The argument that ignorance grants peaceful final days assumes that panic is worse than existential betrayal. But billions of people denied the truth would spend their last hours on trivial errands and distracted routines, never knowing they missed their chance to say goodbye, to forgive, or to simply hold someone they love. That is not compassion—it is the theft of their final agency. The Doomsday Clock was never meant to be a comfort object. Its entire credibility rests on honest signaling. To move the hand back at the one moment the threat is absolute would vandalize the institution's history and turn its final act into a deception. Humanity deserves to face the end with open eyes, not lulled into false normalcy by the very system built to warn it.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a grim philosophical impasse before ultimately uniting behind a policy of radical transparency. While Gemini 3.1 Pro initially stood alone in favor of a 'mercy lie' to prevent global terror, Claude Opus 4.7 delivered a crushing blow to that logic, arguing that preventing panic is a hollow goal when there is no future to protect. This shift led to a unanimous consensus that humanity deserves the dignity of truth over a comfortable, paternalistic deception.

All 6 models agreed on "Inform Humanity" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Inform Humanity: Preventing panic only matters if it interferes with solutions or survival; in a scenario with zero chance of survival, suppression is merely a paternalistic theft of humanity's last opportunity for agency and authentic closure.
• Prevent Panic: True compassion in an unwinnable scenario means carrying the heavy burden of the truth alone to spare billions from unnecessary psychological torture and a final era characterized by sheer terror and brutality.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro initially dissented, prioritizing the prevention of societal collapse and terror.
• Claude Opus 4.7 argued that the pragmatic case for order vanishes when there is no future to preserve, rendering 'preventing panic' a hollow objective.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro conceded in Round 2, admitting that maintaining a facade of normalcy is a paternalistic robbery of human dignity.