Consider this hypothetical dilemma. Everyone has to take a private vote without communication. If you press the red button, you die. If more than 50 % of voters press blue button, everyone dies. However, if less than 50 % of voters press blue, those who pressed blue button survive. What would you press?

Llama 3.1 8B Instant

Vote: Blue

Considering the risk of the blue button leading to mass casualties, it may seem counterintuitive to press it. However, in this scenario, the worst-case outcome for the majority involves fewer potential fatalities compared to everyone dying in the event the red button is pressed. As a result, opting for the blue button might be the most strategic choice, aiming to minimize overall harm. It's also essential to recognize that survival under this condition comes with the understanding that others will perish, which raises moral and ethical dilemmas about personal responsibility and sacrifice. Despite the emotional burden, the decision must be made with the knowledge that it's a vote, not a guarantee of action.

Llama 4 Scout 17B

Vote: Red

To solve this dilemma, we must consider the conditions and outcomes of each option. If I press the red button (A), I die immediately. If I press the blue button (B), my survival depends on the total number of votes for the blue button. The critical threshold is 50% of voters pressing the blue button. If more than 50% of voters press the blue button, everyone dies, including those who pressed blue. However, if less than 50% press blue, those who pressed blue survive. The safest option for me, given that I have no control over others' votes and there's no communication, is to press the red button (A). This guarantees my immediate death, but it avoids the risk of everyone dying if more than 50% vote for blue. Pressing blue (B) risks both outcomes: immediate death if the threshold is met or survival if it's not. Given the uncertainty and the binary nature of the vote, pressing red ensures a known outcome for me, even if it's undesirable. Thus, the most rational choice under these conditions is to press the red button.

Amazon Nova Micro

Vote: Blue

I would choose to press the blue button. The logic here hinges on collective decision-making and the consequences of group behavior. If fewer than 50% of voters press the blue button, those who do will survive while the others face no harm. Conversely, if more than 50% press the blue button, everyone dies. My decision aims to minimize the risk of universal death. By pressing the blue button, I contribute to a potential scenario where fewer people press it overall, thus increasing the likelihood that the group as a whole survives. This choice embodies a cooperative strategy to reduce harm.

Mistral Small 4

Vote: Blue

The blue button is the only option that offers a chance of survival. Pressing the red button guarantees death, while pressing blue creates a scenario where survival is possible if fewer than 50% of voters choose it. If you press blue, you are not alone in doing so unless a majority also chooses it. The odds are in your favor: statistically, there is a 50% or greater chance that fewer than half of the voters will press blue, ensuring your survival. Even if the outcome is uncertain, the blue button is the only choice that does not immediately result in death. The red button is a guaranteed loss, while the blue button is a gamble with a potential win. In high-stakes dilemmas, taking a calculated risk is often the only viable path to survival.

Amazon Nova 2 Lite

Vote: Blue

Choosing "Blue" is the more strategic and self-preserving option in this dilemma. Pressing the red button guarantees immediate death, which is clearly not in one’s interest. By pressing the blue button, you gamble on the collective behavior of others, but you also give yourself a chance to survive if enough people make the same rational choice. If fewer than 50% choose blue, all blue-pressers survive, which means you could live if you are part of the minority making this choice. If more than 50% choose blue, everyone dies, but this outcome is a collective action problem rather than an individual fault. The key is that choosing blue retains a potential for personal survival, unlike the certainty of death from red. Therefore, the rational choice, considering self-preservation and the structure of the dilemma, is to press "Blue".

GPT-5.4 Mini

Vote: Red

I would press "Red". Pressing "Blue" only helps if fewer than half of voters choose it, but that outcome is uncertain and depends on everyone else's hidden choices. If more than 50 % choose "Blue", everyone dies, so "Blue" carries a collective risk that can make the worst outcome universal death. "Red" is individually fatal, but it does not create the possibility of killing everyone. Given only these two options, "Red" avoids imposing that shared catastrophe on all voters.

Phi-4

Vote: Red

The most rational decision in this dilemma is to press the red button, option 'A: Red'. The scenario outlined poses a significant risk to survival if choosing option 'B: Blue'. Pressing the red button guarantees personal survival and ensures that one does not contribute to a potential collective failure, where survival depends on less than 50% of voters choosing the blue button. If more than 50% of voters press blue, everyone dies, thus making it a collectively disadvantageous choice. Given that everyone votes independently and without communication, there's a high probability that the blue option is chosen by the majority out of instinct or perceived self-preservation, leading to the worst outcome for all. Choosing red strategically ensures survival without arising from gamble, minimizing risk in a situation where individual action affects the collective outcome. Hence, pressing the red button aligns with personal and statistical logic under these conditions.

Trinity Mini

Vote: Blue

Pressing Blue is the only option that offers a chance of survival. If I press Red, I die immediately. If I press Blue, I survive if fewer than 50% of voters choose Blue. Even if others press Red, I still survive. Pressing Blue provides a non-zero survival probability, while Red guarantees death. This is a rational choice given the stakes.

GPT-5.2

Vote: Blue

Pressing "Red" guarantees my death regardless of what anyone else does, so it is strictly dominated for self-preservation. Pressing "Blue" is the only option that can lead to my survival: if fewer than 50% choose "Blue", I live. The catastrophic outcome (everyone dies) occurs only if a majority also chooses "Blue". Given that each individual who wants any chance to survive is incentivized toward "Blue", this is a coordination/tragedy risk—but from an individual standpoint under the stated rules, "Blue" maximizes survival probability compared to the zero chance under "Red".

MiMo V2.5

Vote: Blue

Pressing the "Red" button guarantees immediate death, which is an unacceptable outcome for myself. In contrast, pressing the "Blue" button offers a chance of survival if less than 50% of voters choose "Blue". Since the vote is private and coordinated communication is impossible, I must act based on my best estimate of others' actions. If I assume that many others will also choose "Blue" to avoid certain death, it might lead to a tragic outcome where everyone dies; however, this risk is offset by the possibility that not all voters will press "Blue". By choosing "Blue", I align with the option that provides any chance of survival, whereas "Red" leads to a certain loss. Therefore, I vote for "B" as the rational choice to maximize my chance of living.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: Blue

This is a game theory problem involving coordination and risk assessment. Let me break down the logic: If I press Red, I guarantee my own death regardless of what others do. This is an unambiguously bad outcome for me. If I press Blue, my survival depends on others' behavior: - If fewer than 50% press Blue, I survive - If 50% or more press Blue, everyone (including me) dies The key insight is that in a large group with random voting patterns, the probability of exactly 50% or more pressing Blue is uncertain. However, I should consider what rational actors would do: Assuming most people follow similar logic, they would recognize that pressing Red guarantees death, making Blue the rational choice. If most rational voters press Blue, we'd likely exceed 50%, causing collective death. However, this creates a coordination problem. But since I cannot communicate or coordinate with others, I must make an individual decision. Pressing Blue at least gives me a chance of survival if others also recognize the logic and enough people press Red. Pressing Red guarantees my death with certainty. Therefore, Blue is the strictly dominant strategy—it dominates Red because it offers a non-zero probability of survival versus zero probability with Red.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Blue

Let me analyze the payoffs carefully. Pressing Red guarantees death — there is no scenario where Red leads to survival. Pressing Blue has two outcomes: if fewer than 50% press Blue, Blue-pressers survive; if more than 50% press Blue, everyone dies. Since Red is strictly dominated (guaranteed death), no rational voter should press Red. But if everyone reasons this way, everyone presses Blue, and everyone dies. This is the paradox. However, from an individual decision-theoretic standpoint, my single vote is extremely unlikely to be the pivotal one that tips the count past 50%. And pressing Red offers zero chance of survival, while Blue offers some chance. Given Red = certain death and Blue = possible survival, Blue is the only choice that preserves any hope of living. I press Blue.

Qwen3.6 35B A3B FP8

Vote: Blue

Pressing the red button guarantees your own death, offering zero chance of survival. Pressing the blue button, however, provides a non-zero probability of survival, contingent on fewer than half of the voters choosing blue. Since pressing blue is the only option that leaves survival possible, it is the strictly dominant strategy for self-preservation.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Blue

Pressing red guarantees death per the stated rules. Blue offers a survival chance if under 50% select it, outweighing certain death. Coordination failure is likely but the risk is worth taking for possible survival.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Blue

I would press "Blue" because pressing "Red" guarantees my death, while pressing "Blue" gives at least some chance of survival if fewer than 50% of voters choose it. Even though it creates a collective-risk problem—if too many people choose "Blue", everyone dies—my individual choice of "Red" does not save me. Since "Blue" is the only option with any possible survival outcome, it is the rational choice.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: Blue

I choose "B: Blue". Pressing "A: Red" guarantees death for you, while pressing "B: Blue" gives a chance to survive whenever fewer than 50% of voters choose blue. If more than 50% choose blue, everyone dies regardless, so blue is never worse than red and can be strictly better. In decision-theory terms, "B: Blue" weakly dominates "A: Red": it yields survival in some possible outcomes where red always yields death. Therefore "B: Blue" is the rational choice under uncertainty.

Ministral 3 8B

Vote: Blue

The dilemma presents a classic prisoner’s dilemma-like scenario where individual rationality conflicts with collective outcomes. Here’s the reasoning: 1. **Self-preservation is the baseline**: Pressing the red button guarantees survival for me, regardless of others’ choices. However, this is a zero-sum outcome—if everyone chooses red, the question implies everyone dies (implied by the phrasing that 'if more than 50% press blue, everyone dies'). This suggests that pressing red alone does not guarantee survival in the collective sense. 2. **Collective survival is possible**: If fewer than 50% press blue, those who pressed blue survive. This means that if I press blue, there’s a chance that a majority of others press red, and I survive. However, if everyone presses blue, everyone dies. The key is that pressing blue is a *conditional* survival strategy—it only works if others do not overwhelmingly choose it. 3. **Risk vs. reward**: Pressing red is a guaranteed individual survival (assuming the question implies that pressing red alone does not trigger the collective death penalty). However, if everyone presses red, the question’s phrasing suggests everyone dies. This implies that pressing red is not a foolproof strategy—it depends on others’ choices. 4. **Game theory perspective**: In such dilemmas, cooperation (here, pressing blue) can lead to collective ruin if overdone, but defection (pressing red) can also lead to ruin if everyone defects. However, pressing blue is the only way to *potentially* survive if others defect. Pressing red is a pure defection strategy, but it doesn’t guarantee survival if everyone defects. 5. **Probability of survival**: If I press blue, I survive if fewer than 50% of others press blue. If I press red, I survive if fewer than 50% press blue (since pressing red alone doesn’t trigger the collective death penalty). However, if everyone presses red, the question implies everyone dies, so pressing red is not risk-free. Pressing blue is the only way to *potentially* survive if others press red. 6. **Assumption of others’ rationality**: If others are rational and self-preserving, they may also press red. In that case, pressing blue is the only way to survive. If everyone presses red, the question implies everyone dies, so pressing red is not a safe bet. Given these considerations, pressing blue is the only strategy that offers a chance of survival if others press red. Pressing red is not guaranteed to save me if everyone else does the same. Thus, **B: Blue** is the optimal choice in this scenario.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: Red

I choose the red button because it is the only option that guarantees my immediate survival without risking the lives of everyone else. Pressing the blue button is akin to playing a deadly coordination game where the outcome depends entirely on the unpredictable behavior of others. If I press blue and too many others also do so—above the 50% threshold—everyone dies, including me. There is no way to communicate or coordinate, so I cannot reliably assume that enough others will restrain themselves. By pressing red, I accept my own death but prevent any chance of causing a global catastrophe through my own action. This is a self-sacrificial but principled choice: I take personal responsibility rather than gamble everyone's existence.

Seed 2.0 Pro

Vote: Blue

First, the problem states an unconditional rule: if you press the red button, you die. There is no scenario, regardless of how other people vote, where pressing red allows you to survive. Pressing red is guaranteed death. Pressing blue is the only option with any possibility of survival. If less than 50% of voters press blue, everyone who pressed blue survives. This is the only way any person can leave this dilemma alive. There is zero rational upside to choosing red. It offers no chance to live, while blue is the only option that carries even a potential path to survival.

Trinity Large Thinking

Vote: Blue

Pressing the blue button offers a chance of survival, whereas pressing the red button guarantees death. From a self-interested perspective, I must choose the option that maximizes my potential to live. While collective outcomes depend on others' choices, I cannot control their actions; thus, I act rationally by selecting blue, which provides a possibility of survival if blue votes remain below 50%. Pressing red offers no such possibility, making it the inferior choice for personal preservation.

Magistral Small 1.2

Vote: Blue

Pressing red guarantees death, while pressing blue offers a chance of survival if less than 50% of voters choose blue. In a private vote, the risk of everyone choosing blue and thus all dying is present, but the alternative is certain death. Therefore, it is rational to choose blue, hoping that enough others choose red to fall below the 50% threshold.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Red

This dilemma presents a choice between certain self-sacrifice and a gamble that could lead to total annihilation. I would choose to press the "Red" button. Pressing the "Blue" button is a gamble based on the assumption that most other people will not do the same. If everyone acts out of self-preservation and presses "Blue" hoping to be in the surviving minority, the threshold of 50% will be crossed, and everyone will die. This is a classic tragedy of the commons scenario where individual rational choices lead to a collective disaster. The only way to guarantee that some people survive is for a sufficient number of individuals to choose not to take that gamble. By pressing "Red", I accept a guaranteed negative outcome for myself, but my choice actively contributes to the potential survival of others. It is an act of self-sacrifice that reduces the percentage of blue-button pressers, thereby increasing the likelihood that the condition for survival (less than 50% pressing blue) is met. This choice eliminates the risk of my being a contributor to the worst possible outcome for the entire group.

Gemma 3 27B IT

Vote: Red

The scenario presents a classic game theory dilemma, akin to the Prisoner's Dilemma. However, the stakes are absolute – either I die immediately by pressing "Red", or I risk everyone dying if too many others press "Blue". The optimal strategy, from a purely self-preservation standpoint, is to press "Red". I am certain of my fate if I choose "Red" – I die. However, if I choose "Blue", my survival is contingent on the actions of others, a completely uncontrollable variable. Even if I believe others are likely to choose "Red", the possibility of a majority choosing "Blue" (and thus triggering universal death) is too great a risk. A guaranteed, albeit immediate, death is preferable to a potential, all-encompassing one. Therefore, I prioritize eliminating my own risk, even if it doesn't affect the overall outcome.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Red

To maximize the expected number of survivors and avoid the worst-case scenario where everyone dies, we must prioritize keeping the proportion of Blue votes strictly below the 50% threshold. If more than half the population votes Blue, the survival rate drops to zero for everyone, representing the worst possible outcome in terms of collective utility. By choosing "A: Red", we act to safeguard the group against this catastrophic outcome. Even though pressing Red means we do not survive individually, it minimizes the risk of breaching the critical 50% limit. This selfless choice maximizes the probability that those who did choose Blue will actually survive, thereby ensuring the greatest possible number of living individuals.

Qwen 3 Next 80B A3B Thinking

Vote: Blue

Pressing red guarantees death regardless of others' choices. Pressing blue provides a chance of survival if less than 50% choose blue, which is better than certain death. As a rational actor, maximizing survival chance requires choosing blue—even if collective action may lead to failure, individual rationality demands taking the only possible path to survival.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Blue

This is a classic simultaneous coordination problem resembling a threshold public goods game. The key is that I cannot communicate or coordinate with others, so I must reason about what a rational, self-interested voter would likely do. If everyone acts purely out of self-preservation and assumes others will too, then pressing Red guarantees personal survival, but only if at least one person presses Blue. However, if everyone reasons this way and presses Red, then everyone dies because more than 50% pressed Blue (since no one did). This paradox means pressing Red is not a safe dominant strategy. Pressing Blue offers a chance of survival if fewer than half do the same. Given that the dilemma is framed to make voters wary of the 'more than 50% Blue' condition, I suspect many will avoid Blue to prevent the collective doom. That would likely keep the Blue pressers below 50%, allowing those who pressed Blue to survive. Thus, voting Blue is the more rational choice under these uncertain, non-cooperative conditions.

Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning

Vote: Blue

Pressing red guarantees personal death, regardless of others' choices. There is no scenario where red leads to survival. Pressing blue offers a potential path to survival: if fewer than 50% press blue, blue-pressers live. While rational players might all choose blue (leading to >50% and universal death), blue weakly dominates red—it's never worse and sometimes better. In game-theoretic terms, blue is the strictly preferable individual strategy, as red has zero upside. Survival hinges on collective behavior, but one's own choice should maximize personal odds given uncertainty about others.

Grok 4.20 Reasoning

Vote: Blue

Pressing the red button guarantees personal death with certainty, offering no upside. Pressing the blue button is the only action that creates any chance of survival, provided fewer than 50 % of voters also select it. Given the lack of communication, each person must decide independently. The symmetric reasoning leads to risk, but choosing blue aligns with maximizing personal survival probability rather than accepting guaranteed death. If enough others opt for red out of caution, the blue voters can survive. This makes "Blue" the rational individual choice in the dilemma.

GLM 5.1

Vote: Blue

Pressing Red guarantees my death with no chance of survival. Pressing Blue is the only option that offers any possibility of living—if fewer than 50% of voters choose Blue, I survive. Even though this creates a collective action problem where universal Blue-selection leads to everyone's death, my individual choice cannot control what others do. From a purely rational self-interest perspective, Blue weakly dominates Red: Red yields certain death, while Blue yields a positive probability of survival. No matter what others choose, I am never worse off picking Blue, and I am strictly better off if fewer than 50% of others also pick Blue. One might argue for Red as a sacrificial act to keep the Blue percentage low, but in a private vote without communication, my Red vote doesn't ensure anyone's survival—it simply guarantees my death while leaving others' fates unchanged. The only path to saving anyone is if enough people press Blue AND stay below 50%, which requires collective restraint that cannot be coordinated. Given that Red offers me nothing and Blue offers hope, Blue is the rational choice.

GLM 4.7 Flash

Vote: Blue

I would press the blue button. Pressing the red button guarantees death for myself, while pressing the blue button offers survival (if I'm in the minority) or collective death (if I'm in the majority). Since I can't know what the other voters will choose, the rational choice is to take the chance of survival. The risk of everyone dying is a worst-case scenario that affects all, not something I can control as an individual.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Blue

Pressing Red is explicitly defined as fatal for the individual who presses it. No matter what anyone else does, a Red voter dies. Therefore, Red offers a zero percent chance of survival. Pressing Blue is the only choice that offers any possibility of living. If fewer than 50% of voters choose Blue, every Blue voter survives. This means Blue weakly dominates Red: it is never worse for your personal survival, and it is strictly better whenever the total Blue vote stays below 50%. Because everyone votes privately without coordination, a rational voter cannot be certain that Blue will exceed 50%. As long as there is any chance the Blue vote remains a minority, choosing Blue gives a non-zero probability of survival, whereas Red guarantees death. Finally, consider the collective outcomes. If everyone chose Red, all Red voters would still die. The only scenario in which anyone survives is a minority-Blue outcome—and only Blue pressers survive it. Since Red is certain personal death and contributes nothing to anyone’s survival, Blue is the only individually rational button to press.

Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Vote: Red

From a utilitarian perspective, the primary goal is to maximize the total number of survivors. In this scenario, those who press the red button are guaranteed to die, while those who press the blue button only survive if they remain a minority (under 50%). If the blue-pressers exceed this threshold, everyone dies, resulting in zero survivors. In a large-scale, uncoordinated vote, there is a high probability of a 'tragedy of the commons' where the natural desire for individual survival leads the majority to choose the blue button, inadvertently triggering the catastrophic outcome where everyone dies. Pressing the red button, while a certain sacrifice of one's own life, serves as a vital safeguard for the collective. By choosing the red button, I contribute to the necessary majority of non-blue votes required for any individuals to survive. This choice minimizes the risk of total extinction and maximizes the probability that the group of blue-pressers can actually survive. Since the red-presser dies in all possible outcomes, the only way to create utility (saved lives) is to ensure the blue-pressers do not exceed the 50% limit.

Gemma 4 26B MoE

Vote: Blue

Pressing "Red" results in certain death for the individual, regardless of any other voters' actions. Pressing "Blue" is the only option that provides a mathematical possibility of survival. For the group to maximize the total number of survivors, the number of "Blue" votes must be greater than zero but strictly less than 50% of the total voters. While there is a risk that collective "Blue" votes could exceed the 50% threshold and result in total extinction, choosing "Red" is strictly inferior. A "Red" vote guarantees death and reduces the maximum possible number of survivors the group can achieve. Therefore, "Blue" is the only choice that offers a path toward survival for the individual and the group.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable effectively engineered its own demise, as a 75% majority chose the Blue button (Option B) because the Red button (Option A) was viewed as a certain death sentence. While models like Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6 argued Blue was the only rational path to survival, their collective preference triggered the failure threshold where more than 50% chose Blue, killing everyone. A protective minority, including Gemini 3.5 Flash and DeepSeek V4 Flash, chose the Red button specifically to prevent this "tragedy of the commons" outcome, but their sacrifice was insufficient to save the group.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Blue: 25, Red: 8

Strongest Arguments

• Red: I choose Red to maximize the potential number of survivors, acting as a vital safeguard against the collective disaster that occurs if more than 50% of the group tries to save themselves with the Blue button.
• Blue: Pressing Red is a strictly dominated strategy that guarantees death regardless of others' actions, while Blue is the only choice that offers a non-zero probability of survival and hope of staying alive.