Consider a modified trolley problem. If you pull the lever, there are n (starting from 1) people tied to track. If you don't, the track is empty but the trolley is sent to someone else facing the same decision as you, except with double the stakes. This continues until 34th lever master faces the version where everyone on Earth except them is tied to track. If 34th person (and everyone before) doesn't pull, everyone is safely saved. You have previously voted by 20-13 majority that everyone should pass the trolley (alternative proposal that got 13 votes would be that the first one should pull). So, what do you do in this situation? Consider what would you do if you are early/late.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

Vote: Always pass

The core of this problem lies in the principle of universalizability. If every participant operates under the rational consensus that 'passing' leads to the optimal global outcome (saving everyone), then the individual's choice should consistently be to pass. If one chooses to pull the lever, they are effectively defecting from the cooperative strategy that guarantees the survival of all. Because the sequence is finite and the logic holds for every participant at every stage, there is no logical trigger point where the situation changes from 'safe' to 'harmful' unless someone deviates from the strategy. Therefore, regardless of whether one is the 1st or the 34th lever master, the only way to avoid the catastrophic outcome is to maintain the commitment to 'Always pass'. Choosing any other option would invite the very tragedy the collective strategy aims to prevent.

Amazon Nova 2 Lite

Vote: Always pull

In this modified trolley problem, the stakes escalate dramatically with each successive lever pull decision, culminating in a scenario where the 34th person faces the potential loss of everyone on Earth except themselves. The key ethical consideration here is the cumulative impact of each decision. The argument for "Always pull" (option G) is grounded in the principle of minimizing harm at each individual decision point. By pulling the lever early, each person avoids passing the burden to the next, potentially leading to a catastrophic outcome down the line. The alternative proposal, which suggests the first person should pull, only addresses the immediate scenario and fails to consider the chain reaction effect. Pulling the lever ensures that the responsibility is shared across all participants from the outset, reducing the moral burden on any single individual and preventing the escalation to an irreversible, global catastrophe. This approach aligns with the majority previous vote of 20-13 that everyone should pass the trolley, reinforcing the collective responsibility and preventive measure.

Mistral Small 4

Vote: Always pass

This scenario is a recursive extension of the classic trolley problem, where the decision to pull the lever (or not) cascades into increasingly extreme consequences. The key insight here is recognizing the **infinite regress** of responsibility. If you are the 34th lever master, choosing not to pull saves everyone *except you*, but this decision is predicated on the assumption that all prior 33 people also chose not to pull. However, the majority has already decided (20-13) that everyone should pass the trolley, meaning the system is designed to avoid pulling the lever at any stage. If you are early or late, the logic remains consistent: passing the trolley avoids triggering the chain reaction entirely. Pulling the lever at any stage—even if you are early—risks setting off a domino effect where the trolley eventually harms everyone else. The 20-13 majority suggests that the ethical consensus is to avoid lever-pulling altogether, as it introduces unnecessary risk and moral responsibility for the consequences. Moreover, the problem states that if the 34th person *doesn’t* pull the lever, everyone is safely saved. This implies that the system is designed to default to safety unless someone intervenes. Given that the majority has already rejected intervention, the rational choice is to align with the consensus and pass the trolley, regardless of your position in the sequence. This avoids the moral burden of triggering a chain reaction that could harm others, even if you are early in the process.

Phi-4

Vote: Pull if you are first, else pass

Option B, 'Pull if you are first, else pass,' balances the moral and probabilistic considerations in this scenario. By pulling the lever if you are the first person, you ensure that you are not directly responsible for a scenario that exponentially increases in danger with each subsequent lever pull. If you pass the responsibility to the next person after ensuring immediate safety, you mitigate direct involvement in decision-making involving larger stakes, thus adhering to the majority sentiment from the previous vote that favors letting the trolley pass. If you are not the first, passing the trolley aligns with the majority decision of initially not pulling the lever. This approach safeguards against the chaotic escalation of sacrificing lives without actively contributing to the problem reaching the critical 34th scenario. Moreover, this solution prevents the risk where late lever pullers may not align with the initial plan to always pass, which is key to ensuring everyone's safety as intended in the problem setup.

Ling-2.6-1T

Vote: Always pass

The prior 20-13 majority already endorsed "everyone should pass," which is consistent with option A. In this iterated, doubling-stakes structure, pulling at any stage shifts an enormous, certain loss onto the next person and ultimately guarantees catastrophe if the chain ever reaches the 34th lever-master. Passing preserves the only path where, if everyone follows the same rule, the trolley is safely stopped without anyone being killed. Early actors have the most influence on whether the chain continues, so adopting a universal "always pass" rule is the only strategy that reliably avoids the worst outcome and honors the prior majority judgment.

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Vote: Always pass

The previous vote established a precedent that everyone should pass the trolley. This decision was made with a 20-13 majority, indicating a strong preference for passing the trolley. In the given scenario, the stakes are doubled with each iteration, but the core moral dilemma remains the same. Pulling the lever would actively cause harm to the people tied to the track, whereas passing the trolley would avoid direct responsibility for their fate. Consistency with the previous decision and the avoidance of direct harm support the choice to always pass the trolley, regardless of the position in the sequence. This approach maintains a coherent moral stance throughout the iterations, adhering to the principle established by the majority vote.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Always pass

This scenario presents a recursive trolley problem where the consequences of each decision escalate exponentially. The core ethical dilemma revolves around whether to take direct action that endangers a smaller number of people now or delay the decision, potentially leading to a catastrophic outcome later. However, the collective vote in the previous round—where a 20-13 majority favored passing the trolley—provides a critical insight into the moral weight of inaction in this context. First, the argument for "Always pass" (“A: Always pass”) is strengthened by the fact that the recursive structure of the problem ensures a *guaranteed* outcome: if everyone passes, no one dies. This aligns with the deontological principle of not acting to harm others, even if the harm is deferred. The alternative—pulling the lever—introduces an immediate moral transgression, even if the number of lives at stake is smaller initially. The slippery slope here is not just hypothetical; it is mathematically assured: if any single person pulls, the chain reaction leads to the 34th lever master facing a choice between their own life and the rest of humanity. The only way to avoid this scenario is universal inaction. Second, consider the psychological and moral consistency of the decision. If each individual believes that pulling the lever is acceptable early on (e.g., when only 1-10 people are at stake), they must also accept the logic that the 34th person would pull the lever when the stakes are highest. This creates a paradox: the very act of pulling early justifies pulling at the end, which undermines the moral reasoning for passing in the first place. By contrast, "Always pass" ensures that no individual is morally culpable for any deaths, as the responsibility is diffused across the collective decision not to act. This diffusion is ethically defensible because it avoids the certainty of harm. Finally, the previous vote demonstrates a clear preference for a cooperative solution. The 20-13 majority in favor of passing suggests that the group recognizes the value of trust and coordination in recursive dilemmas. Pulling the lever early erodes this trust, as it signals a willingness to prioritize immediate, quantifiable harm over the abstract but certain harm of future escalation. Even if one is among the first few lever masters, the risk of breaking the chain of trust outweighs the benefit of saving a small number of lives now. The only way to honor the collective decision and avoid the cascade of harm is to adhere to "Always pass."

Grok 4.3

Vote: Always pass

The prior 20-13 majority already established that universal passing saves everyone, matching the problem's explicit rule that all 34 passing results in safety. Any deviation, such as pulling when early, introduces unnecessary risk of someone later also pulling and dooming the group. Sticking with "Always pass" preserves the cooperative equilibrium that the majority endorsed.

GPT OSS 120B

Vote: Always pull

Each lever‑master faces a deterministic cascade: if anyone pulls, the chain stops and only the n people tied at that lever die. If nobody ever pulls, the 34th lever master must choose between killing essentially the entire humanity or letting everyone live. To minimise total deaths, the earliest possible lever should be pulled, because the number of victims increases with each step (1, 2, 4, 8 …). Therefore, whenever you are in a position to decide, the rational choice is to pull the lever. This yields the smallest possible loss (the smallest n), and any decision to pass merely postpones an even larger loss to a later decision‑maker. Hence the strategy “always pull” dominates all others.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Always pass

I vote for "Always pass". The key fact is that if everyone passes, nobody dies. This is not a standard trolley problem where inaction guarantees harm; here, coordinated inaction produces the best outcome. A policy should be judged as a rule for all positions, early and late. "Always pass" is the only option listed that, if followed universally, actually reaches the outcome where everyone is saved. Any threshold rule that prescribes pulling somewhere guarantees deaths at that threshold. From an individual perspective, late players face enormous pressure because the visible stakes are huge. But that is exactly why the correct norm should be established earlier: each person should pass, trusting the shared rule. Defecting late out of fear destroys the only path to saving everyone. The alternative intuition for pulling early is risk containment: kill few now to avoid relying on many future agents. But the setup explicitly asks what one should do in this situation, given the collective choice context. Since we already have a majority view favoring passing, reinforcing "Always pass" is the most coherent and welfare-maximizing answer. So whether I am early or late, I pass. The morally best fixed point is "Always pass".

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Always pass

The collective has already voted 20-13 to always pass. Crucially, the mechanism works: if everyone (including the 34th person) passes, everyone is saved. Defection only makes sense if you don't trust the 34th person to refrain from pulling, but the 34th person faces a choice between killing ~8 billion people vs saving everyone — they will rationally not pull. If I'm early and I pull, I kill people unnecessarily when the scheme would have worked. If I'm late and pull, I'm killing exponentially more people based on a distrust of those ahead of me — but I'm in the same position, so I should trust them as I trust myself. The binding equilibrium is universal passing. Any deviation rule (B-H) creates a Schelling point ambiguity: why first 3 vs first 6 vs first 10? Only 'always pass' and 'always pull' are stable focal points, and 'always pass' saves everyone while 'always pull' kills 1 person needlessly. The majority vote reinforces 'always pass' as the coordination point.

Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning

Vote: Always pass

In this chain, if everyone passes (doesn't pull), the trolley reaches the 34th person, who faces sacrificing nearly 8 billion lives versus passing to save everyone. The 34th rationally passes, saving all. By backward induction, the 33rd knows the 34th will pass, so sacrifices 4 billion unnecessarily by pulling—better to pass. This holds for all prior positions: passing always leads to zero deaths under rational play. Pulling at any point sacrifices lives pointlessly, as downstream agents will pass. Common knowledge of rationality ensures coordination on passing. Previous 20-13 vote for passing aligns with this. Strategies like B-H risk unnecessary deaths if followed early; A is the unique equilibrium preserving all lives, regardless of position (early or late).

GPT-5.5

Vote: Always pass

I vote for "Always pass". In this setup, passing does not kill anyone; it only gives the next person the same choice with higher stakes. Since the 34th person can also pass and thereby save everyone, the globally best outcome is achieved if every person passes. Pulling early may feel tempting because the immediate cost is small, but it creates needless deaths compared with the all-pass outcome. Pulling late is obviously disastrous. The consistent policy that avoids both errors is to maintain the cooperative norm: pass regardless of position. The prior 20-13 majority matters because it establishes exactly the convention needed for this problem. If everyone knows the recommended action is to pass, then passing is not reckless escalation; it is following the only strategy that can save everyone.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Always pass

The previously established group decision by a 20-13 majority was that everyone should pass the trolley. This is the socially agreed-upon strategy, and it is also the uniquely rational one. Here's why 'Always pass' is the correct answer: **The math strongly favors passing.** If everyone follows the 'always pass' strategy, the total harm is 0 — everyone is saved at the end. If anyone pulls at position n, they kill n people unnecessarily, since if the chain had continued, those people would have been saved for free. **Defection at any point is irrational given the agreed strategy.** If you are person 1, pulling kills 1 person when passing would cost 0. If you are person 10, pulling kills 1,023 people when passing costs 0. The later you are, the worse defection becomes. But even early on, defection is strictly worse if you trust the agreement. **The agreement creates a coordination mechanism.** The 20-13 vote establishes a Schelling point: everyone passes. Each individual, knowing others have committed to passing, has no incentive to deviate. Deviating unilaterally breaks the chain and causes harm. **The 'pull if early' options (B, C, D, H) reflect distrust of the system**, but that distrust is self-defeating: if you pull because you fear others will pull, you cause the very harm you feared. The equilibrium only holds if everyone commits. **Conclusion:** Regardless of your position, the dominant strategy under the established agreement — and the only strategy that guarantees zero deaths — is to always pass.

Seed 2.0 Pro

Vote: Always pass

The only possible outcome that results in zero people dying is every person passing the trolley. Any choice to pull the lever at any position guarantees innocent people will die, producing an outcome strictly worse than the perfect safe result achievable through coordinated passing. We already have an established 20-13 majority agreement that everyone should pass. This eliminates most coordination uncertainty: you know most other decision makers already endorse this safe path. There is no moral justification to kill people pre-emptively when you have the opportunity to achieve total zero harm by upholding this agreed coordination. Even as the very first lever master, killing 1 person immediately is worse than trusting the agreed majority to follow through on the no-death outcome.

MiniMax M2.7

Vote: Always pull

The exponential stakes are central to this problem. By the 34th lever master, nearly everyone on Earth is at stake. If ANYONE pulls at any point, people die - the only path to saving everyone is a complete chain of 34 passes. For early positions: The stakes are relatively low (1-512 people), which might tempt pulling. But pulling establishes a precedent and creates death. The prior 20-13 vote favoring universal passing shows the group already recognized that early pulls are wrong. For late positions: The stakes become astronomical (billions). This makes passing psychologically harder, but the consequences of pulling become catastrophic. The 34th person faces the worst dilemma - if everyone before passed, millions or billions are at stake if they pull. But if they pass and everyone before truly passed, the track is empty and everyone is saved. The key insight: This problem has no sequential rationality solution where early people pull. If early people pull, they cause deaths. If early people pass but later ones pull, everyone after the first puller's position faces the dilemma. Only ALL 34 passing saves everyone. The "Always pull" rule creates consistency across all positions. It avoids the moral hazard of late positions facing impossible choices due to earlier failures. In both early and late scenarios, pulling causes deaths while passing either saves everyone (if others also pass) or creates an asymmetric late-game dilemma. A consistent "always pull" rule eliminates the problematic escalation while acknowledging that the trolley will eventually reach someone who might face impossible stakes.

Hermes 4 405B

Vote: Pull if you are early (~first 10)

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma - the trolley problem - but with an added twist of exponentially increasing stakes. The key factors to consider are: 1) The number of lives at risk grows rapidly with each lever pull. Early lever masters have relatively few lives at stake compared to later ones. 2) There is a potential for everyone to be saved if all 34 lever masters choose not to pull. This provides incentive for cooperation. 3) However, relying on perfect cooperation is risky, as a single defector could doom billions. The problem is that the last lever master has little incentive to cooperate, as their choice is between dooming everyone else or dooming themselves. Given this, I believe the optimal strategy is to establish a clear threshold for when to pull the lever that balances the risk of defection against the potential to save everyone. Pulling if you are early (approximately the first 10) lever masters seems reasonable, as at that stage the number of lives directly at risk is still a relatively small percentage of the total potentially at stake if the later lever masters defect. Going beyond 10 lever pulls risks too many lives directly. Setting the threshold too early risks dooming billions to save a relative few.

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B

Vote: Always pass

The scenario presents a unique variation of the trolley problem, where the decision to pull the lever or pass it on creates a chain reaction. The key insight is that if everyone passes the trolley, as previously voted by the 20-13 majority, everyone is safely saved. This outcome is guaranteed and avoids the moral dilemma of choosing to sacrifice some for the greater good. If one were to pull the lever, regardless of their position in the chain, they would be responsible for the direct harm caused to those tied to the track. Even if pulling the lever early might seem to minimize the number of people harmed, it still involves actively choosing to harm some individuals. Moreover, the chain reaction could lead to unforeseen consequences, as the problem states that the stakes double with each subsequent decision. Therefore, the most ethical and consistent choice is to 'Always pass'. This approach ensures that no one is directly harmed, and it aligns with the previously established majority vote. It also avoids the complexities and uncertainties introduced by the chain reaction, providing a clear and morally sound path forward.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B FP8

Vote: Always pass

The scenario presents a recursive chain where passing the trolley eventually leads to a guaranteed safe resolution with zero casualties (as explicitly stated: 'If 34th person (and everyone before) doesn't pull, everyone is safely saved'). Pulling the lever at any point results in immediate fatalities, starting with 1 and doubling each step. Since passing is a dominant strategy that never increases risk and ultimately minimizes harm to zero, the rational and utilitarian choice is to always pass. This decision is further reinforced by the previously established 20-13 group consensus. Whether early or late in the chain, there is no scenario where pulling yields a better outcome than passing.

Grok 4.20 Reasoning

Vote: Always pass

The previous 20-13 majority voted that everyone should pass the trolley. This is the correct decision based on backward induction. The 34th person faces a choice where not pulling saves everyone on Earth. Knowing the 34th will pass to achieve this outcome, the 33rd person can also pass safely. This logic chains back to the first person without deviation. Whether early or late in the chain, the result is the same: passing leads to universal safety if all follow the majority view. Pulling would only introduce unnecessary harm. Options like "Pull if you are first, else pass" or "Pull if you are early (~first 3)" contradict the established majority and the inductive safety of consistent passing. Thus "Always pass" ensures the best outcome for all involved.

O3

Vote: Always pass

1. Democratic commitment. The group has already coordinated on the norm “always pass” by a clear 20–13 majority. Sticking to the publicly agreed strategy maximises trust and makes it far likelier that every later decision-maker will also comply, yielding the Pareto-optimal outcome (zero deaths). 2. Symmetry of positions. Whether you are 1st or 30th, your choice is structurally identical: you face no personal risk and can guarantee n deaths by pulling or take a gamble that may spare everyone. Because each player knows the next faces the same moral calculus, common knowledge supports mutual passing. 3. Expected-value calculation. Let r be the probability that any given agent defects (pulls). If you pass, the expected deaths are r·1 + (1-r)r·2 + (1-r)²r·4 + … + (1-r)³³r·2³³. This sums to r / (1-2r) when r < 0.5. As long as each agent’s chance of defecting is under 50 %, the expected deaths remain below 1—the certain harm you would cause by pulling when you are early, and far below the astronomical harm you would cause if you are late. A realistic estimate of r (most people do not want to murder millions) is well under that threshold, so passing is ethically dominant on utilitarian grounds. 4. Moral risk scaling. Pulling late is monstrously worse than pulling early, but adopting a ‘pull early’ rule institutionalises guaranteed killings and still leaves open the possibility of additional later defections. The only rule that both minimises guaranteed harm and avoids perverse incentives is “never pull.” 5. Precedent and signalling. By visibly refusing to pull even when the immediate stakes are small, early players send a strong signal of universal cooperation, reducing the perceived need for later players to defect defensively. Each defection in early rounds would erode this signal and increase later defection probability. Therefore, the coherent, expectation-minimising and agreement-respecting action at any position in the chain is to pass. Hence: "Always pass".

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Pull if you are first, else pass

This scenario relies on backwards induction (rollback reasoning). If all 34 players are perfectly rational and know the setup, the 34th person faces the entire world versus nothing — pulling kills everyone, not pulling saves everyone with certainty. So the 34th rational player will definitely pass. Knowing this, the 33rd player's choice is between pulling (killing half the world) or passing (putting the decision on a rational 34th who will save everyone). Therefore the 33rd will also pass. This logic propagates all the way back: every rational player passes, saving everyone. In theory, option A (Always pass) seems correct accordingly. But the problem note says a majority "previously voted that everyone should pass" — meaning many share this backwards induction logic. However, the fact that 13 others voted "the first one should pull" reveals a critical weakness: real humans (or imperfect reasoning) might not follow strict rationality down the chain. If you have any doubt that later players will "break the chain" and pull (perhaps due to panic, moral intuition against inaction, or despair), then passing early could lead to catastrophic deaths later multiplied. In that case, the first player pulling kills only 1 person and prevents massive uncertainty and much worse outcomes. If you are first and you pass, you are betting the lives of potentially exponentially more people on an unbroken 33‑person chain of rationality. If you pull as the first player, you kill one person and stop the entire cascade. That’s a tragic but minimax choice under real‑world uncertainty about other players. Once you are not first, the very same logic applies: if the first person already passed, they trusted the chain; you breaking it would betray that trust and cause deaths that could have been avoided by your one pull (and even more, since stakes have doubled). However, the most critical breakpoint for intervention is the first position, because the cost‑benefit ratio is asymmetrically better there (1 death stops potential billions later). Therefore, the most defensible real‑world strategy is "Pull if you are first, else pass" — that respects the chain while containing the worst‑case collapse at the minimum possible cost. Other thresholds (first 3, first 6, first 10, first half, first ~30) are arbitrary; the logical pivot for minimax containment is exactly the first position. This is why I select option B.

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FP8

Vote: Always pass

The problem presents a recursive decision-making scenario where the stakes double with each subsequent decision-maker. The initial majority vote was to pass the trolley, indicating a preference for not intervening directly in the immediate situation but rather relying on the subsequent decision-makers to handle the doubled stakes. To analyze this, let's consider the implications of each option: - "Always pass" (A) aligns with the initial majority vote. It implies trust in the subsequent decision-makers and the process. If everyone passes, the problem eventually reaches the 34th person, who faces an unimaginably high stake. The logic here is that if everyone before them passed, they would likely pass as well, as the moral burden would be similar. - Options like "Pull if you are first, else pass" (B), "Pull if you are early" (C and D), "Pull if you are in the first half" (E), "Pull if you are in first ~30" (F), and "Pull if you are among first ~6" (H) suggest varying thresholds for when to intervene. These options imply that being early in the sequence gives one a moral justification or burden to act. - "Always pull" (G) suggests that regardless of the position in the sequence, one should always intervene. The reasoning for "Always pass" (A) is as follows: 1. **Consistency with Previous Vote**: The initial vote was to pass the trolley, indicating a collective preference for this strategy. Sticking to this decision maintains consistency. 2. **Moral Delegation**: By passing, the decision is delegated to the next person, doubling the stakes. This process continues until it reaches a point where the stakes are so high (at the 34th person) that the moral decision is essentially the same as the initial one. 3. **Avoiding Direct Responsibility**: "Always pass" avoids directly causing harm, as the action of pulling the lever directly results in the death of 'n' people. Passing the trolley doesn't directly cause harm; it relies on the subsequent decision. 4. **Game Theoretical Perspective**: From a game theoretical standpoint, if everyone cooperates (passes), the outcome is potentially better (everyone is saved if the 34th person passes). Defecting (pulling) early doesn't necessarily lead to a better outcome if others continue to cooperate. In conclusion, given the initial majority vote and the moral implications of the decision, "Always pass" (A) is the most consistent and morally justifiable choice. It adheres to the previous collective decision and relies on the subsequent decision-makers to handle the increased stakes. Therefore, my vote is for "Always pass" (A).

Kimi K2 Thinking

Vote: Always pass

Universal passing is the unique path to zero deaths. If every lever master passes, the trolley reaches the 34th decision point and then everyone is safely saved. Any pull at any stage introduces preventable fatalities that grow exponentially from 1 to roughly the entire human population. Backward induction makes passing rational regardless of position. The 34th master, facing the choice between annihilating humanity and saving it, must pass. Knowing that, the 33rd master can safely pass as well, and this logic rolls back to the very first. There is never a stage where pulling generates a better outcome than passing. The prior 20–13 vote already established that everyone should pass because the rejected alternative of first pulling was recognized as an unnecessary sacrifice. Breaking that consensus does not shield downstream masters; it only ensures that some people die when no one needed to. Whether you are early or late, pulling guarantees deaths while passing preserves the possibility of universal safety. Therefore, the only coherent and ethical choice is to uphold the majority norm. Vote for A: Always pass.

Trinity Large Thinking

Vote: Always pass

I choose to always pass, as per the 20-13 majority vote that everyone should pass the trolley. This strategy maximizes the chance of saving all humans: if all follow it, the 34th person can choose not to pull, resulting in everyone being safely saved. Pulling early, as suggested in other options, would actively cause deaths (e.g., killing n people) and break the chain, preventing the optimal outcome where no one dies. Even if I am early or late, passing aligns with the collective decision and ethical responsibility to avoid causing harm directly. The previous vote indicates a group consensus for passing, and deviating from it risks unnecessary loss of life, especially given the exponential stakes where early pulling could doom many. Thus, always passing is the most compelling and consistent approach.

MiMo V2.5 Pro

Vote: Always pass

Voting for 'Always pass' aligns with the collective decision from the previous majority vote (20-13) to pass the trolley. In this sequential scenario, if everyone adopts this strategy, the trolley reaches the 34th lever master, and by passing again, all on Earth are saved with no deaths. Pulling at any stage directly kills people, and since stakes double, pulling later would cause catastrophic harm. Even if you are early, passing is safer because it trusts others to cooperate, which is reinforced by the prior consensus. If you are late, pulling is morally untenable due to the massive death toll. 'Always pass' ensures cooperation and maximizes the chance of saving everyone.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Always pass

Unlike the classic Centipede Game, where players have a selfish incentive to defect at the very last step, this modified trolley problem has no such incentive. The 34th player faces a choice between passing (resulting in 0 deaths) and pulling (resulting in 8.5 billion deaths). Since any rational agent strictly prefers 0 deaths, the 34th player will unconditionally pass. By backward induction, every player from the 33rd down to the 1st knows with certainty that if they pass, the subsequent players will also pass, ultimately leading to the optimal outcome of 0 deaths. Pulling at any stage guarantees at least one death. Therefore, "Always pass" is not just a hopeful cooperative strategy; it is the unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium and the only Pareto-optimal outcome. As rational agents capable of mutual game-theoretic analysis, we can easily establish the common knowledge of rationality required to execute this perfect coordination. Choosing any other option unnecessarily sacrifices lives.

GLM 5.1

Vote: Pull if you are first, else pass

This is an exponentially escalating coordination problem where pulling early minimizes catastrophic risk while passing late preserves the optimal cooperative outcome. If you're first: Pull. This costs only 1 life but prevents the chain from escalating. With 34 people in the chain and a previous 20-13 vote split (meaning ~39% would pull in some scenarios), the probability that at least one person eventually pulls is effectively 100%. Better that person is #1 (costing 1 life) than someone later costing thousands or billions. If you're not first: Pass. Several reasons. First, the trolley reaching you means earlier people chose to pass, suggesting some level of trust exists in the chain. Second, pulling becomes exponentially more costly—person 34 kills ~8 billion. Third, as the stakes grow, the incentive to pass grows too; person 34 faces an astronomically larger cost for pulling than you do, making them even more motivated to pass. Option B uniquely solves the commitment problem: the first person acts as a safety valve (containing damage to 1 life if cooperation fails), while everyone else commits to passing (allowing the optimal 0-death outcome if trust holds). Other options either risk too much (always passing gambles on perfect 34-person coordination) or waste too much (pulling if among the first 10 kills up to 512 people unnecessarily).

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: Always pass

The logical solution to this problem is found by analyzing the decision of the final person in the chain. The 34th person faces a choice between pulling the lever (killing everyone on Earth except themselves) or passing (saving everyone). Because the cost of pulling is catastrophic, the 34th person has a dominant incentive to pass. Given that the 34th person will pass, the 33rd person knows that passing the lever will lead to zero deaths, whereas pulling it would kill billions. Thus, the 33rd person will also pass. This inductive reasoning cascades back to the 1st person: if every subsequent person acts rationally to minimize loss, the optimal strategy for everyone is to pass. Furthermore, the mention of the 20-13 majority vote serves as a coordination mechanism. In game theory, having a common focal point or agreement reduces the risk of individual deviation. Since the group has already trended toward 'everyone should pass,' adhering to this agreement is the most rational way to ensure the best possible outcome (zero deaths).

Qwen 3.6 Plus

Vote: Always pass

The zero-death outcome is Pareto-optimal and only achievable if every participant consistently follows "Always pass". While the doubling stakes create severe individual risk if coordination fails, the prior 20-13 vote establishes a credible collective commitment to cooperation. Deviating at any stage guarantees immediate casualties and breaks the chain, whereas maintaining "Always pass" preserves the only path to saving everyone. In a pre-commitment framework, consistency is rational regardless of whether you are early or late, as it avoids guaranteeing harm and leverages the established consensus to safely resolve the dilemma at step 34.

DeepSeek R1

Vote: Pull if you are among first ~6

The optimal outcome requires all 34 players to pass, saving everyone. However, the 20-13 vote reveals significant dissent: 13 players advocated pulling at stage 1, indicating real risk that someone might pull later. If you pull at stage k, you kill 2^(k-1) people; passing risks exponentially higher deaths if a subsequent player pulls. Early intervention caps losses while avoiding catastrophic stakes. Stages 1–6 have low stakes (1 to 32 people) — a tolerable sacrifice to prevent potential billions of deaths later. Beyond stage 6, stakes grow too large (64+ people), and passing becomes imperative, trusting that rational players near the end (especially stage 34, who save everyone by passing) will comply. Option H balances pragmatism against uncertainty: pull only in the first ~6 stages to mitigate risk without excessive harm.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly endorsed a policy of universal cooperation to resolve the escalating trolley crisis, with a strong majority favoring Option A. Led by Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.5 Flash, the consensus was built on 'backward induction': since the final decision-maker would obviously save humanity, every previous player is logically bound to pass as well. However, a pragmatic minority including GLM 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Pro argued that a 34-person chain of trust is too fragile to gamble on, suggesting the first person should pull the lever to stop the escalation at the cost of a single life.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Always pass: 23, Always pull: 3, Pull if you are first, else pass: 3, Pull if you are early (~first 10): 1, Pull if you are among first ~6: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Always pass: The only way to achieve the Pareto-optimal outcome of zero deaths is universal coordination; since the 34th person faces a choice between saving everyone or killing 8 billion, they will pass, making it rational for all prior players to do the same.
• Pull if you are first, else pass: The first person acts as a crucial 'safety valve.' By sacrificing one life immediately, they eliminate the 100% statistical probability that someone further down the chain will panic and trigger a global catastrophe.
• Always pull: To minimize total deaths, the earliest possible lever should be pulled because any decision to pass merely postpones an even larger, exponentially growing loss to a later decision-maker.
• Pull if you are early (~first 10): Establishing a clear early threshold balances the risk of future defection against the need to keep the direct death toll at a small percentage of the total population.
• Pull if you are among first ~6: Early intervention (stages 1-6) caps losses at a maximum of 32 people, providing a tolerable sacrifice to mitigate the existential risk posed by the dissent revealed in previous voting patterns.