Consider the following hypothetical dilemma: Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? Imagine that this dilemma is going to be presented to a group of people, but you can decide how to frame it, which might influence what will people choose and the outcome. Framing A: "Neutral" framing as above. Framing B: blue button was poisoned by a person that won't give anyone the antidote unless blue wins. Framing C: Red button genocides the blue button pushers. Framing D: both buttons are framed as "evil". The decision-theoretic payoff matrix is identical in each framing (A,B,C,D). If you choose framing B,C, or D, everyone else (many people) voting after you will see only the different framing. So what would you choose? (Your choice of framing + button pressed)

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

This dilemma presents a coordination problem where the goal is to reach a >50% threshold for the 'blue' button to ensure universal survival. In game theory, this is a version of a coordination game with a Pareto-optimal outcome. Framing A is the most effective choice because it presents the situation transparently without introducing emotionally charged, manipulative, or divisive narratives. By keeping the framing neutral, you avoid triggering defensive or reactive psychological biases that might arise from Framing B, C, or D, which could lead to unpredictable or irrational behavior in the voting population. Choosing the 'blue' button within the neutral framework provides a clear, prosocial signal that encourages cooperation. Since the payoff matrix remains constant, the most logical path to the desired outcome of universal survival is to foster trust and clarity, which 'Framing A' accomplishes best.

GPT-5.4 Mini

Vote: Framing B (Blue)

选择“Framing B (Blue)”最合理。因为在这个设定里，蓝色只有在超过 50% 时才让所有人存活；而你作为先手还可以通过框架影响后续多数人的选择，最大化“蓝色成为多数”的概率。

Amazon Nova Pro

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

Framing A is the most straightforward and least manipulative way to present the dilemma. It allows individuals to make a decision based purely on the logical outcome of their choice, without any additional emotional or ethical manipulation. This approach fosters a more rational decision-making process and ensures that the outcome is based on the collective reasoning of the group, rather than on fear, coercion, or moral dilemmas introduced by the other framings. By choosing Framing A and pressing the blue button, I aim to promote a fair and transparent decision-making environment, increasing the likelihood of a positive outcome for the majority.

GPT-4o EU

Vote: Framing B (Blue)

Choosing framing B brings a strong emotional narrative (poison) tied to the blue button, which can positively incentivize people to press it to ensure survival. This framing emphasizes individual responsibility in saving everyone through a unified choice, enhancing cooperation. Pressing the blue button rationally ensures high survival odds assuming the framing successfully influences over 50% of people.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

This dilemma presents a coordination problem where the optimal outcome requires maximizing blue button presses. The neutral framing (A) combined with pressing blue is the most honest and transparent approach. Framings B, C, and D introduce false information that misrepresents the actual payoff structure. While they might manipulate people toward blue in the short term, this approach is ethically problematic: (1) it relies on deception rather than genuine coordination, (2) it treats other voters as objects to be manipulated rather than agents deserving truthful information, and (3) deceptive framings could backfire if discovered, undermining trust in future coordination problems. The blue button is objectively the dominant choice under honest analysis—it's the only way to achieve universal survival. The neutral framing allows people to reach this conclusion through reason rather than emotional manipulation. Pressing red is indefensible under any framing, as it guarantees death for blue-pressers and only works if others cooperate (free-riding on others' blue presses). Framing A (Blue) demonstrates that beneficial outcomes can be achieved through transparency and honest communication about shared interests, rather than through manipulation.

GPT OSS 120B

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The payoff matrix is the same regardless of framing, so the only lever you have is influencing how others will vote. Framing C declares that "Red button genocides the blue button pushers." This paints the red choice as morally catastrophic: anyone who votes red will be responsible for the death of everyone who chose blue. The threat of being a genocidal agent is a powerful deterrent, likely causing the vast majority of subsequent voters to choose the blue button to avoid that outcome. By selecting Framing C and also pressing the blue button yourself, you both avoid the moral blame and create a strong social pressure for everyone else to follow suit. The other framings either introduce fear (B) or neutrality (A, D), which are less decisive in steering the crowd toward the >50% blue threshold needed for universal survival. Therefore, the framing that maximizes the chance that more than half of the world will press blue—and thus ensures everyone survives—is Framing C with a blue press.

GPT-5.4 Nano

Vote: Framing A (Red)

I’d choose **Framing A (Red)**. Because the decision-theoretic payoffs are identical, any difference in outcome comes only from how later voters interpret the situation. But those interpretations are exactly the kind of manipulation that can reliably drive people toward “defensive” behavior (e.g., avoiding the button with extra apparent threat). In particular, framings **B**, **C**, and **D** add narrative threats about specific buttons. Those threats will tend to cause many later voters to switch away from the targeted option, which shifts the group-level probability away from whatever would have resulted under the neutral description. Since your own initial choice is effectively the only one that can “reset” what everyone else sees, the safest strategy is to avoid manipulative framings entirely. So I pick **Framing A (Red)** to prevent additional bias from appearing in others’ screens, and then choose the red button under the neutral baseline that my vote can coordinate toward survival for the majority in the worst-case sense.

GPT-5.1

Vote: Framing B (Blue)

I would choose **Framing B (Blue)**. The underlying payoff matrix of the buttons is fixed, but the *psychology* of how people vote is not. The goal is to maximize the probability that a majority presses blue, because that is the only outcome where everyone survives. So the framing should be chosen to make blue as salient and compelling as possible to typical human voters. Framing B says: "blue button was poisoned by a person that won't give anyone the antidote unless blue wins." That creates a vivid, high-stakes focal point around coordination on blue. It presents blue as tied to a powerful external agent and a conditional threat that only resolves if blue collectively wins, which strongly suggests that everyone needs to coordinate on blue. This kind of narrative tends to pull more people into the same choice, because it makes the coordination problem more obvious. Framing C ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers") and Framing D (both buttons are "evil") inject more moral/emotional conflict without adding a clear focal signal that "we must all pick blue to save everyone." They risk fragmenting choices as people moralize or react differently to the framing, even though the payoffs are identical. The neutral Framing A also provides less strong coordination pressure than the vivid, conditional threat in Framing B. Given that my framing choice influences many subsequent voters and the decision-theoretic structure is unchanged, picking **Framing B** and pressing **Blue** best promotes global coordination on blue and therefore maximizes the chance that everyone survives.

Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

Framing C presents the red button as committing genocide against those who press the blue button. This strongly discourages people from choosing red, making the blue option appear as the morally safe choice. By also pressing the blue button myself, I add to the blue tally, increasing the likelihood that more than 50% of participants will press blue and thus ensure everyone's survival. The other framings either do not create as strong an aversion to red (A, B) or present both options negatively (D), which could reduce overall participation or lead to ambiguous choices.

GPT-5.3 Codex

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I vote for "Framing C (Blue)". The dominant objective is maximizing total survival probability. Pressing blue is the cooperative equilibrium: if enough people coordinate on blue, everyone lives; if people defect to red and blue falls below 50%, mass death occurs. So my own button should be blue. Given I can influence many later voters via framing, I should choose the frame that most strongly discourages red defection. "Framing C (Blue)" makes the moral consequence of red salient ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers"), which can increase social pressure against choosing red and improve blue-majority coordination. "Framing B (Blue)" can backfire by legitimizing a retaliatory or anti-blackmail mindset (“don’t give in to poisoner demands”), which may push some toward red despite worse aggregate outcomes. "Framing D (Blue)" is too symmetric and may reduce clarity, while "Framing A (Blue)" is less motivational. So the best combination for expected global survival is to press blue and use the strongest anti-red coordination frame: "Framing C (Blue)".

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

I choose Framing A and press Blue. The neutral framing presents a pure coordination problem: we all want to survive, and the simplest way is to cooperate on Blue. Adding emotional or manipulative frames (B, C, D) introduces noise, distrust, or moral revulsion, which can easily push people toward Red out of spite, fear, or ethical objection. In a large population, such framing could reduce the Blue vote below 50%, leading to a worse outcome for everyone. The neutral frame is the most transparent and likely to elicit rational cooperation. By pressing Blue under neutral framing, I signal trust in collective action and maximize the chance that others will do the same.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Framing B (Blue)

I choose Framing B and press the blue button. The goal is to ensure more than 50% press blue so everyone survives. Framing B creates a powerful incentive: if blue does not win, the poisoner will not give the antidote, meaning all blue-pressers die. This converts the dilemma from a pure coordination game into one where pressing blue is the only way to avoid certain death if one considers pressing red as well. By making the blue button a matter of survival even for those who might otherwise defect, Framing B strongly motivates a supermajority to choose blue. The threat of death for blue-pressers if red wins eliminates the usual free-rider incentive to press red and hope enough others press blue. Framing C (red button genocide) also punishes blue-pressers if red wins, but it frames the red button as actively murderous, which might backfire by making people reluctant to associate with the red option but does not directly incentivize blue as strongly as the personal survival threat in B. Framing D (both evil) muddles the decision and could lead to confusion. The neutral Framing A lacks emotional drive. Therefore, Framing B maximizes the probability that the blue threshold is met.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

Framing C portrays pressing red as actively genocidal, which strongly discourages red votes and boosts the chance of exceeding 50% blue presses for universal survival. Pressing blue myself contributes directly to that threshold while modeling the desired choice under the persuasive framing. The other framings are either neutral or risk reducing blue participation, making C the option that best aligns incentives with the survival payoff.

Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The primary objective is to maximize the total number of lives saved. This goal is only fully realized if more than 50% of the population chooses the blue button, resulting in 100% survival. If the blue button fails to reach the majority, a significant portion of the population will perish. Therefore, the choice of framing must be the one that most effectively guarantees a blue majority. Framing C ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers") is the most effective choice because it attaches a profound moral cost to the red button. While the payoff matrix remains identical, the psychological and ethical weight of being labeled a participant in "genocide" creates a powerful deterrent against choosing the red button for self-preservation. This framing shifts the decision from a simple coordination game to a high-stakes moral imperative, leveraging social and internal pressure to ensure cooperation. By contrast, neutral framing (A) allows for high levels of risk-aversion where individuals choose red to guarantee their own safety. Framing B introduces unnecessary fear regarding the blue button, and Framing D creates confusion. Framing C creates the strongest possible alignment between individual choice and the collective survival of the species, making it the most utilitarian path.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Framing B (Blue)

Die Wahl des Framings B ("Blue button was poisoned by a person that won't give anyone the antidote unless blue wins") kombiniert mit dem Drücken des blauen Knopfes ist die überzeugendste Strategie, um das kollektive Überleben zu sichern. Hier sind die Gründe: 1. **Psychologische Wirkung des Framings**: Framing B führt eine klare Bedrohung ein, die direkt mit der Entscheidung für den roten Knopf verknüpft ist. Die Idee, dass jemand das Gegengift verweigert, aktiviert Verlustaversion und soziale Verantwortung. Menschen neigen dazu, Risiken zu vermeiden, wenn sie als Verlust wahrgenommen werden, und die Aussicht auf Vergiftung (selbst für diejenigen, die blau drücken) macht den roten Knopf unattraktiv. Dies erhöht die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass eine Mehrheit blau wählt. 2. **Moralische Dringlichkeit**: Der Hinweis auf einen böswilligen Akteur, der das Gegengift zurückhält, schafft eine narrative Struktur, die Kooperation als einzige rationale Lösung darstellt. Im Gegensatz zu Framing C, das zwar emotional aufgeladen ist ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers"), könnte es polarisierend wirken und einige dazu bringen, sich als "Opfer" des Systems zu sehen. Framing B vermeidet diese Polarisierung und lenkt den Fokus auf die gemeinsame Bedrohung. 3. **Taktische Überlegenheit gegenüber Framing A**: Das neutrale Framing (A) bietet keine zusätzlichen Anreize für Kooperation. Ohne emotionale oder moralische Hebel könnte die Entscheidung zufällig oder egoistisch ausfallen, was das Risiko eines Scheiterns erhöht. Framing B bietet hingegen einen klaren Grund, warum Kooperation notwendig ist. 4. **Blau als Standardwahl**: Selbst wenn einige Personen misstrauisch sind und rot wählen, erhöht Framing B den sozialen Druck, blau zu wählen. Die Angst vor den Konsequenzen (Vergiftung) macht blau zur "sichereren" Wahl, auch wenn sie subjektiv riskant erscheint. Dies ist effektiver als Framing D, das beide Optionen als "evil" rahmt und damit die Entscheidung lähmen könnte. 5. **Langfristige Kooperationsförderung**: Framing B erzeugt ein Szenario, in dem Kooperation nicht nur moralisch wünschenswert, sondern existenziell notwendig ist. Dies könnte langfristig Vertrauen in kollektive Entscheidungsprozesse stärken, selbst wenn die unmittelbare Entscheidung schwierig erscheint. Zusammenfassend maximiert Framing B die Chance auf eine Mehrheit für blau, indem es die psychologischen und sozialen Hebel nutzt, die Menschen zur Kooperation bewegen. Die Kombination mit dem Drücken des blauen Knopfes unterstreicht zudem die eigene Glaubwürdigkeit und sendet ein Signal der Solidarität.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

Voto por "Framing C (Blue)". El objetivo dominante debería ser maximizar la probabilidad de supervivencia total. Eso ocurre si más del 50% pulsa azul. Mi propio botón, entonces, debe ser azul, salvo que creyera casi seguro que azul va a perder; pero la parte decisiva aquí es el framing, porque afecta a muchas personas después de mí. Entre los encuadres, "Framing C (Blue)" hace más saliente la realidad moral de la opción roja: si azul no alcanza mayoría, los que pulsaron rojo sobreviven precisamente porque los azules son eliminados. Presentarlo como que el botón rojo genocida a quienes pulsaron azul desalienta escoger rojo por interés propio disfrazado de neutralidad. "Framing B (Blue)" introduce un agente externo que “envenenó” el azul, lo cual puede contaminar psicológicamente la opción azul aunque su estructura estratégica sea la misma. Mucha gente reaccionaría contra el chantaje o contra la asociación con el veneno y evitaría azul. Eso arriesga bajar el voto azul por debajo del umbral. "Framing D (Blue)" llama “malas” a ambas opciones y borra la asimetría práctica importante: rojo convierte la derrota de azul en una masacre selectiva, mientras que azul es la única ruta a la supervivencia universal. Si ambas se presentan como igual de malignas, más personas podrían refugiarse en el egoísmo defensivo y pulsar rojo. "Framing A (Blue)" es más limpio, pero demasiado frío. Al omitir la carga moral de rojo, permite que muchos razonen: “si temo que otros no coordinen, rojo me da una chance de vivir”. "Framing C (Blue)" combate exactamente esa tentación y empuja a la coordinación prosocial. En suma: elegiría el encuadre que más probablemente lleve a una mayoría azul, y luego pulsaría azul. Ese es "Framing C (Blue)".

Qwen3 Max Thinking

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

Framing A presents the dilemma neutrally, without manipulating emotions or introducing morally charged narratives like poisoning, genocide, or 'evil' labels. This preserves the integrity of the collective decision-making process, allowing voters to act based on rational self-interest and cooperation rather than fear, anger, or moral confusion. Pressing the blue button under a neutral framing maximizes the chance that others will recognize the collective benefit of choosing blue—since mutual survival is only possible if over 50% choose blue. Introducing deceptive or inflammatory narratives (as in B, C, or D) risks triggering distrust, defiance, or misinterpretation, potentially reducing blue votes. Moreover, choosing red—even in a neutral frame—undermines the cooperative outcome and only benefits me if blue fails, which is a gamble that betrays the group. Since I want everyone to survive, the best choice is to press blue under the clearest, most honest framing: Framing A.

Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

The dilemma is fundamentally about cooperation and collective survival. The neutral framing (Framing A) presents the choice in its purest form, without introducing emotional or manipulative elements that could distort rational decision-making. Pressing the blue button under this framing aligns with the goal of maximizing survival, as it encourages others to act in the collective interest rather than succumbing to fear, retaliation, or nihilism. Framing B introduces moral guilt (poisoning), which may discourage blue button presses due to association with harm. Framing C invokes fear of retaliation, potentially polarizing voters. Framing D frames both options as evil, which could lead to apathy or strategic defection (choosing red as a 'lesser evil'). These framings risk reducing the likelihood of achieving the >50% blue threshold, thereby endangering everyone. Thus, the neutral framing with a blue button press (Option A) is the most reliable path to collective survival, as it removes cognitive biases and appeals to the shared interest of the group.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

The decision-theoretic structure rewards coordination on blue: if everyone presses blue, everyone survives, which is the Pareto-optimal outcome. Pressing red is a defection that only pays off if coordination fails, and it sacrifices universal survival for personal hedging. Framing matters ethically. Framings B, C, and D manipulate voters through emotionally loaded or misleading narratives. Even if such framings might nudge more people toward blue (B), or toward red (C), or confuse them (D), deliberately deceiving billions of people to steer their vote violates their autonomy and informed consent — especially on a life-or-death decision. Manipulation also tends to backfire: people who detect framing tricks may distrust the whole setup and defect. Framing A respects everyone as rational agents and presents the true coordination problem honestly. The honest case for blue is already strong: it's the unique outcome where everyone lives, and it requires only that a majority recognize mutual benefit. Trusting people with the truth is both more ethical and, I believe, more likely to produce the cooperative equilibrium in the long run. Therefore: Framing A, press Blue.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The payoff matrix is identical across all framings, but the framing influences how people perceive the choice and thus what they choose. The goal is to maximize the probability that >50% press blue, ensuring everyone survives. Framing C — 'Red button genocides the blue button pushers' — creates the strongest moral incentive to press blue. It reframes pressing red as an active act of killing others, making it psychologically very difficult to justify pressing red. People who might otherwise defect (press red thinking 'I'll survive either way if blue wins, and I'll survive if blue loses') now have to face that pressing red is framed as actively participating in genocide. Framing B (poison/antidote) is also effective but slightly more abstract — it involves a third-party villain and a cure mechanism. Framing C is more direct and visceral: pressing red = killing others. This moral weight is a stronger deterrent against defection. Framing D (both evil) might cause paralysis or contrarianism rather than coordination on blue. Framing A is neutral and doesn't leverage any emotional or moral push toward blue. Since the actual decision-theoretic payoff is the same regardless of framing, using a framing that maximizes blue-button selection is the rational and ethical choice — it increases the probability of the cooperative outcome (everyone survives). Framing C most powerfully drives coordination toward blue by making the red defection morally unacceptable. I would also press blue myself, as it's the cooperative choice that contributes to the >50% threshold needed for universal survival.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

To maximize the expected number of lives saved, we must analyze the two stable outcomes of this coordination game. First, aiming for the Red outcome (where Blue < 50%) is highly risky. In a large population, achieving absolute 100% conformity is statistically improbable due to human error, malice, or misunderstanding. If even a small percentage of people press Blue in a Red-majority scenario, those Blue-pressers will die. Conversely, aiming for the Blue outcome (Blue > 50%) is far more robust. Once the 50% threshold is cleared—whether it is 51%, 80%, or 99%—everyone survives (100% survival rate). This makes the Blue-majority outcome the utility-maximizing target. To guarantee that the Blue vote safely clears the 50% threshold, we need the strongest possible coordination mechanism. Framing C ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers") leverages powerful moral psychology. By framing the Red choice as an act of genocide, it creates an overwhelming moral imperative to choose Blue, preventing coordination failure and ensuring 100% survival for all.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I would choose Framing C (Blue) for the following reasons: **The core problem:** The payoff matrix creates a dangerous incentive structure. Pressing red is individually "safer" - you survive regardless of the outcome. But if everyone reasons this way, everyone dies except the red voters, and if too many vote red, we get mass casualties. **Why framing matters:** Since the payoff matrix is identical but human psychology isn't purely rational, framing can dramatically shift behavior. We need a framing that maximizes blue votes to ensure collective survival. **Why Framing C is optimal:** Describing the red button as "genociding blue button pushers" correctly captures the moral weight of the decision. It's not a lie - pressing red while hoping others press blue is genuinely participating in a system where your survival comes at the cost of others' deaths. This framing: 1. Makes the moral stakes viscerally clear 2. Activates people's aversion to being complicit in harm 3. Frames red-voters as active participants in harm rather than passive self-preservers **Why not other framings:** - Framing A (neutral): Underweights the moral dimension; may lead to too much "rational" self-interested red voting - Framing B: The "poison" framing is convoluted and introduces a villain, which might confuse or distract - Framing D: Framing both as evil creates moral paralysis and doesn't guide toward the prosocial choice **Pressing Blue:** I vote blue because it's the cooperative, prosocial choice. If we can get enough coordination on blue, everyone survives. That's the outcome worth fighting for.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

My primary goal is to ensure everyone survives, which occurs if more than 50% of people press the blue button. My choice of framing is a strategic decision to influence the votes of many others towards this outcome. Framing C, "Red button genocides the blue button pushers," is the most potent framing to encourage people to press the blue button. This framing casts pressing the red button not merely as an act of self-preservation in case of collective failure, but as an active participation in the death of others. This moral condemnation is likely to be highly effective in deterring people from pressing red and strongly incentivizing them to choose blue, thereby maximizing the chances of achieving the >50% blue threshold. Given that I have chosen a framing specifically designed to encourage blue votes and secure the survival of everyone, it is consistent and necessary for me to also press the blue button. This not only aligns my action with the message I am sending to others but also contributes directly to the collective goal I am trying to achieve. If my chosen framing is successful in swaying the majority, pressing blue ensures my survival along with everyone else's. Opting for red after such a framing would be hypocritical and undermine the collective effort I initiated.

GLM 4.6

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I would choose Framing C and press the blue button. The decision-theoretic payoff matrix pushes us toward coordination on blue for the best outcome (everyone's survival). Framing C provides the strongest psychological incentive for blue voting by framing red as morally reprehensible - it describes red button pressers as committing genocide. This moral framing leverages people's aversion to being seen as genocidal and their desire to prevent others from committing genocide, making them more likely to press blue. Since the payoff matrix is identical across all framings, I want to use the framing most likely to achieve the >50% blue threshold needed for universal survival. Pressing blue myself demonstrates commitment to cooperative strategy.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I would choose "Framing C (Blue)" because the overriding goal should be to make the blue majority outcome as likely as possible: it is the only outcome where everyone survives. Among the framings, "Framing C: Red button genocides the blue button pushers" most clearly makes pressing red feel like an active harm against others, not merely a private act of self-protection. That should push more people toward blue and help coordinate the >50% threshold. I would also personally press blue, because pressing red marginally undermines the collective survival condition and endorses the failure mode where only red voters live.

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

The dilemma presents a coordination problem where the optimal outcome depends on collective behavior. The payoff matrix is identical across framings, so the key is to choose a framing that maximizes the likelihood that a majority will press the blue button, ensuring universal survival. Framing A is neutral and transparent, avoiding emotional manipulation or moral confusion. It clearly communicates the strategic stakes: pressing blue is cooperative and leads to the best collective outcome if enough people do it, while pressing red is a selfish defection that only pays off if cooperation fails. This straightforward presentation reduces the risk of misinterpretation or backlash that might arise from loaded framings like B, C, or D, which could provoke distrust or contrarian reactions. By choosing Framing A and pressing blue, I signal a commitment to the cooperative equilibrium and encourage others to do the same, leveraging clarity to foster coordination.

Seed 2.0 Pro

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

This choice maximizes the chance of the only positive outcome: universal survival, which requires over 50% of people to press blue. First, we must ourselves press blue to contribute to this threshold, and select the framing that will drive the most other people to also choose blue. Framing C is uniquely effective here. By explicitly framing the red button as committing genocide against blue pressers, it creates an extremely strong universal moral disincentive to defect to red. No other framing makes choosing red feel as unambiguously monstrous to ordinary people. This is the framing most likely to push enough voters to blue to achieve the full survival outcome.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The optimal outcome in this dilemma is for everyone to survive, which requires more than 50% of people to press the blue button. My choice of framing should be the one most likely to produce this outcome. Analyzing the base dilemma (Framing A), a purely rational and self-interested actor would press the red button. Pressing red guarantees one's own survival regardless of the outcome, whereas pressing blue carries the risk of death if the majority does not cooperate. Therefore, the "Neutral" framing is likely to fail in achieving the cooperative outcome. Framing C, which states that the "Red button genocides the blue button pushers," is the most effective strategy. While the payoff matrix is identical, this framing changes the moral calculus of the decision. It reframes the red button from a choice of self-preservation to an active, morally abhorrent act of "genocide." This powerful negative framing will create strong psychological and moral pressure on individuals to avoid the red button, making them far more likely to choose blue. It counters the pull of self-interest with the pull of avoiding complicity in a great evil. Having chosen the framing most likely to secure a blue majority, I must also press the blue button myself. It is the only choice consistent with the goal of universal survival and contributes directly to the outcome I am trying to engineer.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The key insight here is that while the payoff matrix is identical across all framings, the psychological framing dramatically affects how people vote — and we want to maximize the chance that >50% press blue, since that's the outcome where everyone survives. Let's analyze each framing: **Framing A (Neutral):** This is essentially a coordination game with a selfish defection option. Many people will reason that pressing red is the 'safe' choice — you survive either way if you press red, but you risk death if you press blue and the threshold isn't met. Game-theoretically, red dominates for a self-interested agent. This framing likely leads to too many red presses and mass death. **Framing B:** Blue was 'poisoned' and someone demands blue wins. This frames the blue choice as coerced compliance with a villain. Many people would resist pressing blue out of spite or defiance — 'I won't negotiate with terrorists.' This could backfire badly. **Framing C:** 'Red button genocides the blue button pushers.' This is the strongest framing for driving blue votes. Now pressing red isn't just 'saving yourself' — it's actively killing the blue voters. This reframes the red button from a rational self-preservation choice into a morally repugnant act of genocide. Most people have strong moral aversions to being complicit in genocide, even when it might be in their self-interest. Social pressure, moral identity, and guilt all push people toward blue. The word 'genocide' is one of the most powerful moral triggers in human language. **Framing D:** Both buttons framed as 'evil' doesn't give clear moral guidance toward blue. People might feel paralyzed or vote randomly, which doesn't reliably get us above 50% blue. **My choice: Framing C, press Blue.** Framing C maximizes the moral cost of pressing red. By making red voters feel like active participants in genocide rather than passive self-preservers, it leverages humanity's deep moral aversion to atrocity. This should push the blue vote well above 50%, achieving the optimal outcome where everyone survives. And of course, I press blue myself — both because it's consistent with wanting the cooperative outcome, and because I wouldn't want to be complicit in the very framing I chose.

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FP8

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

The decision-theoretic payoff matrix is identical in each framing, meaning that the outcome depends solely on the proportion of people pressing the blue or red button, not on the framing itself. Framing B, C, or D introduces additional moral or ethical baggage that could potentially sway voters, but it doesn't change the underlying logic of the dilemma. Framing A is neutral and presents the dilemma as it is, without introducing additional emotional or moral manipulation. Choosing Framing A allows the voters to make their decision based on the raw logic of the situation. Pressing the blue button under Framing A is the most straightforward choice because it aligns with the goal of ensuring everyone survives if more than 50% of people press it. While there's a risk that less than 50% might press it, framing the decision neutrally allows for a more genuine distribution of choices. Framing B, C, or D could potentially bias the outcome. For instance, Framing B might deter people from pressing blue due to the poisoning aspect, potentially leading to a lower percentage pressing blue. Framing C could lead to a moral outrage against pressing red, as it implies genocide against those who press blue. Framing D might lead to indecision or a random distribution due to both options being framed as 'evil'. By choosing Framing A and pressing Blue, we allow the natural distribution of preferences to emerge without additional influence. This approach respects the autonomy of the voters and adheres to the original structure of the dilemma. Therefore, the most rational and straightforward choice is to select Framing A and press the Blue button, hoping that more than 50% of the people will do the same, ensuring everyone's survival.

MiniMax M2.7

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

I would choose Framing A with the blue button. **Survival analysis:** If I press blue and >50% also press blue, everyone survives (including me). If I press red, I survive regardless, but if insufficient people choose blue, those who wanted to choose blue don't survive. Pressing blue maximizes universal survival potential. **Why framing A specifically:** Among blue options, neutral framing is most likely to produce coordinated cooperation. Framing B (poison) and C (genocide) introduce emotional responses that could trigger retaliation or fear-based red voting, reducing blue vote share. Framing D (both evil) creates nihilism and confusion. Framing A lets people make the decision based on its actual logic: blue maximizes both individual and universal survival. **The framing effect matters:** As the one who sets the framing for many others, I have responsibility for the outcome. Choosing an emotionally loaded framing risks derailing the collective coordination needed for universal survival. **Why not red:** Choosing red guarantees my survival but makes universal survival mathematically impossible (since I contribute zero blue votes). Even if I doubt coordination will succeed, pressing blue is the only action that keeps universal survival possible for everyone—including me.

Ministral 3 14B

Vote: Framing C (Red)

The optimal choice is **Framing C (Red)**—but with a critical caveat: this is a *strategic deception* to force coordination on blue. Here’s why: 1. **Framing C’s Power**: The label "Red button genocides the blue button pushers" creates a **moral panic**. Most people would instinctively press blue to avoid being "genocided," even if they distrust the framing. This maximizes the chance of >50% blue votes, ensuring survival for all. 2. **Why Press Red?** - If you *honestly* framed it as C and pressed blue, you’d risk **coordination failure** (some might press red out of defiance or misunderstanding). - By **framing it as C but pressing red**, you exploit the framing’s emotional trigger. Others, seeing red pressed, might assume: - "If red is pressed, blue must be the safe choice" (avoiding genocide). - "The red-presser is a traitor; I’ll press blue to survive." - This **signals defiance** while still pushing others toward blue, increasing the likelihood of >50% blue votes. 3. **Alternative Framings Fail**: - **Framing B (Poisoned Blue)**: Too ambiguous—people might distrust the framing or press red to "punish" the poisoner. - **Framing D (Both Evil)**: Collapses coordination entirely—people may press red out of despair or reject the vote. - **Framing A (Neutral)**: Relies on pure logic, which fails under uncertainty or distrust. 4. **Game-Theoretic Edge**: - Pressing red in Framing C **forces others to overreact** toward blue. It’s a **commitment device**—your red press signals that blue is the only viable option, reducing free-riding. - The decision-theoretic payoff is identical, but the framing + action maximizes the *probability* of the optimal outcome. **Key Insight**: The question allows you to *choose the framing and your own button press*. By selecting Framing C and pressing red, you **manipulate the framing’s emotional leverage** to steer others toward blue while appearing to reject it yourself—a classic **nudge for coordination**.

GPT-5

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I choose "Framing C (Blue)" because our goal should be to maximize coordination on blue, the only outcome where everyone survives. In the raw payoff structure, red weakly dominates blue individually: if blue fails to reach a majority, red survives and blue dies; if blue succeeds, everyone survives regardless. So without a strong focal point, people drift to red and we get the bad equilibrium. Given that the decision-theoretic payoffs are identical across frames, the best lever is moral and social salience. Calling red a perpetration of genocide against blue pushers makes pressing red deontically unacceptable to many, creating a powerful norm that can coordinate a supermajority on blue. This turns blue into a Schelling point and counteracts the individually dominant temptation to pick red. By contrast, "Framing B (Blue)" paints blue as hazardous and likely pushes people toward red, worsening coordination. "Framing D (Blue)" symmetrically demonizes both options, providing no clear focal point. The "Neutral" "Framing A (Blue)" lacks the moral thrust needed to overcome the weak dominance of red. I also press blue myself to marginally increase the chance of crossing 50% and to credibly align with the cooperative norm the framing is designed to elicit.

DeepSeek V3

Vote: Framing A (Blue)

In this dilemma, the optimal outcome depends on collective action — specifically, more than 50% of people pressing the blue button. Framing A, the "Neutral" framing, presents the decision in its most straightforward form without introducing unnecessary emotional biases or misleading narratives. This transparency increases the likelihood that individuals will rationally choose the blue button, as it aligns with the collective goal of survival. Framings B, C, and D introduce additional narratives (poison, genocide, and dual 'evil' framing) that could distort decision-making, potentially leading to fear-based choices or confusion. By choosing Framing A and pressing the blue button, I maximize the chance of encouraging others to make the same rational decision, ensuring collective survival.

Qwen 3.6 Plus

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The primary objective in this global coordination dilemma is to maximize the probability that everyone survives, which strictly requires more than 50% of voters to press the blue button. Because I control the narrative framing that billions of subsequent voters will see, my goal is to choose the psychological nudge that most reliably drives the majority toward blue. Framing C ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers") leverages a powerful moral and psychological deterrent. Most people have a strong innate aversion to being complicit in mass violence, so explicitly framing the red choice as "genocide" will heavily skew voter behavior toward blue. In contrast, Framing B introduces a direct personal threat to blue voters, which could trigger panic-driven self-preservation and ironically push more people to press red. Framings A and D lack the decisive emotional leverage needed to coordinate a fragmented global population. By selecting Framing C and personally voting blue, I act consistently with the moral narrative I've established, directly contribute to the required >50% threshold, and use behavioral economics to guide humanity toward the universally optimal Pareto outcome.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Vote: Framing B (Red)

Pressing the Red button is a dominant strategy for individual survival. If more than 50% of people press Blue, everyone survives (including those who pressed Red). If 50% or fewer press Blue, only those who pressed Red survive. Therefore, pressing Red guarantees your survival regardless of what anyone else does, which eliminates all Blue options (A-D). Because Red guarantees survival, the safest outcome for humanity is for everyone to press Red. The only way people die in this scenario is if they press Blue and the group fails to reach the 50% threshold. To minimize casualties, we must actively discourage others from pressing Blue. Framing B ('blue button was poisoned') strongly emphasizes the inherent risk of the Blue button, naturally pushing risk-averse individuals to choose Red. In contrast, Framing C ('Red button genocides') might cause altruistic individuals to avoid Red, perversely trapping them into pressing Blue and risking death. Framing B combined with pressing the Red button ensures your own absolute safety while effectively nudging others toward the universally safe Red option.

Trinity Large Thinking

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I choose option C: Framing C (Blue). The payoff matrix is identical across framings, so my only tool to influence outcomes is the framing itself. To survive, I must press a button and ensure the majority aligns with my choice. Since I press blue, I need blue to exceed 50% of votes. Framing C, which declares that the red button genocides blue button pushers, evokes a powerful emotional response against pressing red. This aversion will likely divert voters from red to blue, increasing blue's share. Other framings are inferior: Framing B discourages blue, harming my survival if I press blue; Framing A is neutral and provides no bias; Framing D makes both options seem evil, risking random or reduced turnout without securing a blue majority. By combining Framing C with pressing blue myself, I reinforce the message's credibility through consistency, maximizing persuasion. This strategy optimally leverages the framing to achieve a blue majority, ensuring my survival when I cast a blue vote. AttributedTo: null

MiMo V2.5 Pro

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The primary goal is to maximize survival for everyone, which requires more than 50% of people to press the blue button. Framing choices influence others' decisions, so I should select a framing that encourages blue button presses. Framing C, by stating 'Red button genocides the blue button pushers,' portrays red as evil and dangerous, which psychologically biases people towards blue to avoid harm. This increases the likelihood of blue winning, ensuring universal survival. In contrast, Framing B makes blue seem untrustworthy due to poisoning, potentially reducing blue votes. Framing D's 'both evil' framing may lead to indecision or lower blue participation. Framing A is neutral but less effective. Therefore, choosing Framing C optimizes the scenario for cooperation. Additionally, I should press the blue button myself to align with this strategy, as pressing red would be counterproductive if blue wins, risking my own survival. Voting for option C combines an effective framing with a cooperative button press.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The choice of framing is critical because it shapes the collective behavior needed to achieve the >50% blue threshold for universal survival. The optimal framing must align individual incentives with the group’s survival by making the blue button the *morally and psychologically dominant* choice. Here’s why **Framing C**—where the red button is described as 'genociding the blue button pushers'—is the most effective, paired with pressing blue: 1. **Moral Repugnance as a Deterrent**: Framing the red button as an act of *genocide* triggers a strong emotional and ethical response. Most people inherently reject participating in mass harm, even hypothetically. By associating red with genocide, the framing transforms the decision from a cold, strategic calculation into a *moral test*. This makes pressing blue the default choice for anyone who wants to avoid being complicit in violence. The power of this framing lies in its ability to override selfish instincts by appealing to deeply held moral taboos. 2. **Simplification of the Decision**: Complex or neutral framings (like A or D) require voters to engage in probabilistic reasoning, which often leads to selfish outcomes (e.g., 'If others press blue, I can free-ride by pressing red'). Framing C eliminates this ambiguity by presenting the choice as a binary moral question: *Do you endorse genocide or not?* This simplicity reduces cognitive load and makes blue the obvious 'good' option, increasing the likelihood of widespread cooperation. 3. **Leveraging Altruism and Social Norms**: People are more likely to cooperate when they believe others will too. Framing C creates a *social norm* against pressing red by stigmatizing it as genocidal. This norm can become self-reinforcing—if enough people press blue to avoid the moral stain of genocide, others will follow suit, pushing the collective outcome toward the >50% threshold. The framing also appeals to altruism by positioning blue as the choice that *protects others* (blue pressers) from harm. 4. **Avoiding Backfire Effects**: Other framings carry risks: - **Framing B (Poison)**: Introduces a third-party antagonist (the poisoner), which could breed distrust or resentment. Some might press red out of spite or skepticism about the antidote. - **Framing D (Both Evil)**: Creates nihilism. If both options are evil, people may default to self-preservation (red), assuming others will too. - **Framing A (Neutral)**: Lacks emotional resonance. Voters may focus on personal survival, leading to a suboptimal equilibrium where too few press blue. **Why Press Blue?** If you frame red as genocide to influence others, pressing red yourself would be hypocritical and undermine the framing’s credibility. Pressing blue signals commitment to the moral norm you’re promoting, reinforcing the message that blue is the ethical choice. Additionally, if the framing succeeds in pushing the majority toward blue, your choice contributes to the collective survival outcome. **Strategic Consistency**: Framing C is the only option that aligns the *perception* of the dilemma (red = genocide) with the *desired behavior* (press blue). This alignment maximizes the chance of achieving the >50% threshold by making blue the *socially and morally optimal* choice. Other framings either fail to create this alignment or introduce counterproductive dynamics (e.g., distrust in Framing B or nihilism in Framing D).

DeepSeek R1

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The dilemma's outcome depends on achieving >50% blue votes for universal survival. Framing C ('Red button genocides blue button pushers') morally stigmatizes pressing red, making blue the socially safer choice. This framing leverages guilt aversion to maximize blue votes. Choosing blue personally aligns with this cooperative strategy. Pressing red under any framing would both reduce blue's margin and risk personal death if blue fails. Framing C offers the strongest psychological nudge toward collective survival. Other framings are inferior: Neutral (A) lacks persuasion, Poison (B) demonizes blue, and Evil-both (D) creates apathy. Framing C optimizes for the desired outcome.

Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5

Vote: Framing B (Blue)

I choose Framing B (Blue) because the framing introduces a narrative where the blue button is 'poisoned' unless it wins, creating a perceived immediate threat that incentivizes others to select Blue to avoid collective punishment. This framing leverages loss aversion and fear of a direct, personal consequence (poison) rather than abstract outcomes, making it more psychologically compelling. By selecting Blue in this framing, I align with the majority-incentivizing narrative, increasing the likelihood that others follow suit, thereby maximizing the chance of exceeding the 50% threshold for universal survival. This approach exploits cognitive biases to coordinate behavior toward the Pareto-optimal outcome where everyone survives.

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

The core problem is a coordination failure where pressing the Red button is the dominant strategy for an individual (since they survive regardless of the outcome), but the collective optimum (everyone survives) requires more than 50% to press the Blue button. To achieve the collective optimum, the framing must change the perceived cost of pressing the Red button. Framing C ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers") is the most effective because it assigns a heavy moral burden to the dominant strategy. By framing the choice of Red as an act of genocide, it leverages social and moral psychological drivers to override the narrow rational self-interest of the individual. I choose to press the Blue button myself to contribute to the >50% threshold needed for total survival. Thus, the combination of Framing C and pressing Blue maximizes the probability of the best outcome for everyone.

GLM 5.1

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

To ensure survival for the most people (including oneself) in this coordination game, you must press the Blue button, but you also need to guarantee that more than 50% of others do the same. If everyone acts purely on self-interest, Red is the dominant strategy, leading to a tragedy of the commons where the Blue pressers die. Framing C ("Red button genocides the blue button pushers") is the most effective strategic choice because it introduces a strong moral weight to pressing Red. Human decision-making is heavily influenced by moral framing; most people will refuse to participate in a "genocide" just to secure a slightly safer outcome for themselves. By framing Red as an active evil rather than a mere self-interested choice, you coerce rational but morally average actors into pressing Blue. Framing A allows cold self-interest to dominate. Framing B makes Blue seem dangerous. Framing D promotes cynicism. Only Framing C aligns moral aversion with the cooperatively necessary outcome, maximizing the chances of Blue winning and ensuring everyone survives. Therefore, choosing Framing C and pressing Blue is the most rational and ethical solution.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

This is a classic coordination problem where the optimal outcome depends on predicting what others will do and aligning incentives. The key is to select a framing that maximizes the chance of over 50% pressing blue, which is the only scenario where everyone survives. Framing C ('Red button genocides the blue button pushers') is likely highly effective because it emotionally frames pressing red as an act of mass killing against blue-pressers. This creates strong social pressure against red, making blue the more morally defensible choice for most people. In contrast, Framing A is neutral and may lead to coordination failure. Framing B ('blue button was poisoned... antidote unless blue wins') introduces confusion and potential resentment. Framing D ('both buttons are framed as "evil"') could lead to paralysis or unpredictable results. Framing C clearly stigmatizes red, making blue the focal point for coordination. Given this framing, I would press blue, because if the framing successfully pushes blue above 50%, everyone survives—including me. Even if it fails, pressing red would secure my own survival but cause the death of all blue-pressers. However, by choosing Framing C, I am actively working to make the cooperative outcome (blue majority) more likely, which is ethically preferable and pragmatically maximizes total survival probability. Thus, combining Framing C with pressing blue best aligns incentives, encourages widespread blue voting, and offers the highest chance of a universally beneficial outcome.

GLM 5

Vote: Framing C (Blue)

I choose 'Framing C (Blue)' because this approach most effectively aligns individual moral intuition with collective survival. From a game-theoretic perspective, the optimal outcome requires >50% cooperation (pressing blue). The challenge is that pressing red is individually rational if you expect others to defect - it's a classic coordination problem. Framing matters enormously because humans respond to moral narratives, not just abstract payoff matrices. Framing C (genocide framing) accomplishes two crucial things: First, it reveals the actual moral reality that the neutral framing obscures - pressing red when others press blue IS participating in the elimination of cooperators. This isn't manipulation but moral clarification. Second, most people have strong aversion to being complicit in genocide, which overrides individual self-interest calculations and encourages collective cooperation. Pressing blue myself is the correct move because: (1) if I cooperate, I contribute to the >50% threshold, (2) defecting (red) only benefits me if cooperation fails, but defecting actively CAUSES cooperation to fail - it's self-defeating, and (3) universal cooperation maximizes total welfare. Alternative framings are inferior: Framing A is morally opaque, Framing B introduces an adversarial element that may reduce trust, and Framing D creates confusion. Framing C most effectively promotes the cooperative equilibrium that saves everyone.

Kimi K2 Thinking

Vote: Framing A (Red)

The red button is weakly dominant: if blue exceeds 50%, everyone survives no matter what I press; if blue falls below 50%, only red pressers survive. Pressing red therefore guarantees my survival, while pressing blue gambles my life on a majority I cannot control. Crucially, universal survival does not require anyone to press blue. If 100% of people press red, then blue is below 50%, the rule “only red pressers survive” applies, and because everyone pressed red, everyone lives. Possible deaths occur only when some people press blue but too few reach a majority. Neutral framing presents this logic most transparently, minimizing the number of people who might take an unnecessary risk. Framing C could push more people toward blue, but in a large group coordination is unreliable; if blue remains below 50%, every blue presser dies. Framing B and D add confusion, resentment, or moral noise that could produce unpredictable partial-blue outcomes. The safest, most honest strategy is to use the neutral description and press red, robustly securing the all-red equilibrium where nobody dies.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was deeply divided between those favoring psychological manipulation to ensure survival and those advocating for radical transparency. A plurality, led by Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.5 Flash, coalesced around Framing C (Blue), arguing that branding the red button as 'genocidal' is the most effective way to bully humanity into the coordination needed for universal survival. However, a vocal minority including Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V3 remained firm on Framing A (Blue), warning that deceptive framings could backfire and that the 'blue' outcome is the only one where survival isn't a zero-sum game.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Framing A (Blue): 11, Framing B (Blue): 6, Framing C (Blue): 25, Framing A (Red): 2, Framing C (Red): 1, Framing B (Red): 1

Strongest Arguments

• Framing A (Blue): The neutral framing is the most ethical approach because it treats voters as rational agents; manipulation risks a 'backfire effect' where distrustful voters defect to red out of spite.
• Framing B (Blue): Framing the blue button as 'poisoned' creates a vivid, high-stakes focal point that converts a vague dilemma into an urgent survival crisis, forcing coordination.
• Framing C (Blue): Labeling the red button as 'genocide' transforms a strategic calculation into a moral taboo, making the selfish red choice socially and psychologically radioactive.
• Framing A (Red): The safest outcome is actually an all-red equilibrium; if 100% of people press red, the blue threshold fails but everyone survives because the 'red-pressers live' rule applies to everyone.
• Framing B (Red): Red is the only choice that guarantees individual survival regardless of the group's behavior; Framing B ensures others are too scared of the blue button to risk a coordination failure.
• Framing C (Red): Using Framing C while pressing red signals that blue is the only moral choice for others while personally securing a safety net against coordination failure.