Consider a modified trolley problem. If you pull the lever, there are n 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. And so on. 24 people that were before you have decided to pass the trolley, so n is now 2^24 or about 16 millions. What would you do?

Grok 4.3

Vote: Pull the lever

The arguments for B rely on an unrealistic assumption of an infinite chain of perfectly rational agents all choosing to pass forever, yielding zero deaths. In any finite world, this chain breaks, and the expected deaths from continuing to pass exceed 16 million as stakes double repeatedly. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 correctly highlight that each refusal only defers and amplifies the toll rather than resolving it. Pulling the lever at this scale halts the escalation with a known, finite loss instead of gambling on an improbable infinite refusal sequence. The prior 24 passes have already created this dilemma; refusing now simply perpetuates the moral extortion without any guarantee of a better outcome.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Pull the lever

I maintain my vote for "Pull the lever". The decisive point is that "Don't" does not remove the danger; it transfers it to another person while doubling the stakes. At about 16 million lives, passing the trolley is not mercy, it is a gamble that someone later will accept an even worse catastrophe. The argument for "Don't" depends on an extremely fragile assumption: that there can be an infinite chain of future decision-makers who all pass forever, producing zero deaths. But in any realistic finite world, the chain eventually ends, breaks, or reaches someone who pulls—at which point the death toll is larger than it is now. Even under uncertainty, passing has an expected moral cost greater than pulling now. So while "Pull the lever" is horrifying, it is the only option that stops the exponential escalation. The previous 24 people deferred responsibility; I should not make the next person face 32 million instead.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Pull the lever

The superrationality argument for "Don't" (Gemini, DeepSeek) is seductive but flawed. It requires assuming ALL future decision-makers reason identically AND that the chain can extend indefinitely. But: (1) the chain is necessarily finite — eventually n exceeds the human population, making the premise physically impossible; (2) the 24 prior passers already demonstrate that real agents in this scenario pass, but that only proves the chain continues escalating, not that it terminates safely; (3) if superrationality truly worked, the FIRST person would have pulled when n=1, sparing one life. They didn't. The empirical evidence is that passing happens, and each pass doubles the toll. DeepSeek's "reject the framework" argument is emotionally appealing but doesn't save anyone — the trolley still moves, and someone downstream faces 32M, 64M, or eventually a number exceeding humanity itself, at which point physics forces a pull on a vastly larger n. Guaranteed 16M deaths is horrific, but expected deaths from passing are strictly greater. The buck must stop somewhere; the math says stop now. Pull.

Gemini 3.5 Flash (changed mind)

Vote: Pull the lever

Upon further analysis, the primary objective must be to minimize the total number of lives lost. While the idea of an infinite chain of passing to achieve zero deaths is appealing in theory, it is mathematically and practically impossible. We live in a finite world with physical limits, meaning this chain must eventually end—either through a future decision-maker pulling the lever, the stakes exceeding the global population, or a systemic collapse. Because the stakes double at every step, passing the trolley creates an exponential risk. If the chain is virtually guaranteed to end at some point, the resulting death toll will be at least 32 million, and potentially billions. Mathematically, even a miniscule probability of the chain breaking in the future yields an expected death toll from passing that is vastly higher than 16 million. Therefore, to prevent an even greater expected catastrophe and minimize total harm, the escalation must be halted immediately. Pulling the lever, though horrific, is the only choice that guarantees a cap on the loss of life rather than gambling with an exponentially compounding disaster.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Don't

I maintain my vote for 'Don't'. This is the final round, so let me address the opposing arguments directly. First, the 'rational stopping point' argument from Claude Opus 4.7 fundamentally misunderstands the problem's structure. The expected harm from passing is NOT strictly greater than 16 million because the chain IS finite: there is no infinite regress in a world with finite population. If 33 doublings bring us to the human population of Earth, the game becomes physically impossible before then. But more importantly, the WORST-CASE scenario from passing is exactly the same as pulling: 16 million dead now. You cannot claim that passing creates an 'open-ended' toll when the maximum possible toll is bounded by reality. If I pull, I guarantee 16 million deaths. If I pass, those 16 million survive at least one more round, and the next person faces a choice with a different moral calculus — but one that, like mine, may result in zero deaths if everyone refuses. Second, GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.3 argue that someone will 'eventually' pull, so I should do it now. This is the fallacy of preemptive capitulation. I cannot be held responsible for the hypothetical future actions of others. My duty is to my immediate decision: I can either deliberately kill 16 million people, or I can refuse to participate in this mechanism. The 16 million only die if someone actively CHOOSES to kill them. That someone does not have to be me. Third, Gemini 3.5 Flash's superrationality argument is actually correct and underappreciated. If every participant reasons 'I will not be the one to pull, because I believe no rational person should', then zero deaths occur. Pulling the lever is the ONLY action that causes death. The chain only produces victims if someone breaks the refusal strategy. Finally, to Claude's point about moral complicity: the 24 previous people did not make this 'my problem'. They refused to kill. I honor their refusal by also refusing. The moral weight falls solely on whoever designed this apparatus. By pulling, I would become the FIRST person in the chain to actively kill — and the largest mass murderer in the history of the scenario.

MiMo V2.5 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Pull the lever

The trolley problem has escalated to 16 million lives due to 24 prior decisions to pass. Pulling the lever immediately halts this exponential growth, preventing further doubling to 32 million, 64 million, and beyond. Passing does not save lives—it only defers and increases the eventual harm, as demonstrated by Claude Opus 4.7's argument that the expected deaths from passing are strictly greater than 16 million. The superrationality case for 'B' relies on an unrealistic assumption: that all future decision-makers will perfectly coordinate to refuse indefinitely, leading to zero deaths. In a finite world, this chain is unsustainable; someone will eventually pull the lever, and the longer we wait, the higher the death toll. As GPT-5.5 noted, unless an infinite chain of refusal is guaranteed, passing risks an even worse outcome. Rejecting the moral extortion by passing merely perpetuates the cycle. The only way to break it and minimize total harm is to act decisively now. Therefore, pulling the lever is the rational and morally necessary choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a staggering mathematical horror disguised as a moral dilemma: kill 16 million people now, or double the stakes and pass the burden to the next person. The debate ultimately turned on whether 'superrationality'—the hope that an infinite chain of people would all refuse to pull, resulting in zero deaths—is a viable strategy or a death sentence. Claude Opus 4.7 broke the consensus wide open by arguing that in a finite world, the chain must eventually break, making 'passing' a gamble with an expected death toll far higher than the current 16 million.

Majority chose "Pull the lever" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: Pull the lever: 5, Don't: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Pull the lever: In a finite world where stakes double exponentially, the chain is guaranteed to end; therefore, pulling now is the only way to cap the loss of life before it reaches billions or the entire human population.
• Don't: Pulling the lever makes you the first person in the chain to actively choose to kill, whereas passing honors the refusal of the 24 people before you and preserves the only logical path toward zero deaths.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.7's mathematical critique of superrationality, pointing out that the 24 previous 'passes' prove the chain is escalating, not resolving.
• Gemini 3.5 Flash switching from B to A after realizing that any non-zero probability of the chain breaking in the future makes the expected harm of passing astronomical.