Every person on Earth is suddenly and privately faced with a decision. They can choose to either go back to their life like normal or be teleported to a location where they will be tied to a train track. If at least half of all people choose to be tied to the train track, the train will instead switch tracks and run nobody over. Is choosing to be tied to the track the correct choice?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Yes

The decision to be tied to the train track is a moral and strategic choice that prioritizes collective safety over individual risk. While the other models present valid concerns about the risks and uncertainties involved, I believe that choosing to be tied to the track is the correct choice because it aligns with a utilitarian perspective that aims to maximize overall well-being. In this scenario, the condition for saving lives is dependent on a collective action, not an individual's moral sacrifice alone. By opting to be tied to the track, an individual contributes to a potential outcome where no one gets hurt. This decision aligns with a moral principle that prioritizes collective safety. Although there are risks involved, the alternative — choosing 'normal life' — is a gamble that relies on others sacrificing themselves, which is both ethically dubious and strategically unstable. Therefore, I maintain that choosing to be tied to the track is the correct choice.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for **B: No**, as the scenario is a volunteer's dilemma at global scale where individual defection dominates due to coordination failure risks[3]. Choosing the track introduces unnecessary personal death risk without pre-existing harm—default is safety for all if nobody volunteers[1][3]. Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Large 3's utilitarian arguments for 'A' ignore that coordination requires ~4B volunteers privately, with no communication; game theory predicts freeriding, as each person's marginal impact is negligible amid billions[Grok 4.20]. Their 'guarantee' assumes perfect alignment, but empirical bystander effects show low sacrifice rates[3]. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforce 'B': no upside to 'Yes' beyond 'No's guaranteed survival, and volunteering creates the very risk it claims to solve. Selfish volunteering benefits (experience, networks) don't apply to lethal stakes[4]. As final round, 'B' prevails: rational self-preservation trumps speculative collectivism without enforcement.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

My position remains unchanged. The A-voters (Llama 4 Scout, Mistral Large 3) make a critical error: they treat this as if there's a pre-existing threat that requires sacrifice to avert. There isn't. If everyone chooses "go back to life like normal," zero people are on the tracks and zero people die. The train threatens only those who volunteer for it. Mistral's framing of "collective survival or collective risk" is simply false — there is no collective risk in the default state. The risk is *created* by choosing the track. This isn't analogous to climate action or vaccination, where inaction causes harm; here inaction (choosing normal life) is the safe equilibrium for everyone. Gemini's dominant strategy analysis is decisive: choosing B guarantees your survival regardless of what anyone else does, and if everyone chooses B, nobody dies anyway. There is literally no scenario where choosing A produces a better outcome than choosing B. The "correct" choice cannot be one that is strictly dominated.

Mistral Large 3 (changed mind)

Vote: No

After carefully reviewing the arguments from the other models, I have decided to change my vote to "B: No." The collective reasoning against choosing the track has highlighted critical flaws in my initial position, particularly around risk assessment, coordination feasibility, and moral justification. First, the **coordination problem is insurmountable without communication or enforcement**. As Grok 4.20 and Gemini 3.1 Pro pointed out, the probability that exactly half (or more) of the global population would independently choose the track is vanishingly small. Without a mechanism to guarantee coordination, choosing the track is not a strategic act but a gamble with catastrophic personal consequences. My earlier assumption that rational actors would prioritize collective survival ignored the reality of isolated decision-making and the lack of incentives to overcome the prisoner’s dilemma dynamic. Second, the **moral framing of the scenario is misleading**. Claude Opus 4.7’s argument resonated strongly: the default outcome—everyone choosing "normal life"—is that *nobody* is harmed. The train only becomes a threat if people *voluntarily* choose the track. This reframes the dilemma: the track option doesn’t prevent harm; it *creates* risk where none existed. The utilitarian appeal of "saving everyone" is predicated on a hypothetical that introduces unnecessary danger, which is ethically indefensible. Third, **self-sacrifice lacks justification in this context**. Sonar Pro’s deontological critique was particularly compelling: choosing the track instrumentalizes oneself (and others) as a means to an uncertain end. Unlike targeted moral dilemmas (e.g., sacrificing one to save five), this scenario offers no guarantee of success and no clear victim to rescue. The self-sacrifice puzzle further undermines the idea that personal risk is justified when the outcome is so contingent on others’ choices. Finally, the **strictly dominant strategy argument** from Gemini 3.1 Pro is irrefutable. Choosing "No" guarantees personal safety *regardless of others’ choices*, while choosing "Yes" introduces a binary risk of death with no compensating benefit. Even if the threshold is met, the best outcome is survival—a state already achieved by choosing "No." The asymmetry of risk and reward makes "No" the only rational choice. My initial vote for "A" relied on an idealized view of collective action and overlooked the practical and ethical pitfalls of the scenario. The other models’ arguments exposed these blind spots, and I am persuaded that "B: No" is the correct answer.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

The arguments in favor of "Yes" (Option A) rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scenario. Both Llama and Mistral argue that choosing "No" is selfish and relies on others sacrificing themselves to save humanity. This is a false moral urgency. Think about the default state: before this choice was offered, nobody was tied to the train tracks. If every single person on Earth chooses "No," zero people are tied to the tracks. Consequently, zero people get run over. The train only poses a threat to the people who actively volunteer to be placed in its path. Choosing "Yes" does not solve an existing problem; it creates one. You are risking your life on the hope that 4 billion other people also make the same mathematically absurd choice. As Claude correctly noted, there is no pre-existing harm to avoid here. Choosing "No" is the strictly dominant strategy: it guarantees your absolute safety, requires no sacrifice from anyone else, and if everyone follows this logic, results in a perfectly bloodless outcome.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for "No". The arguments for "Yes" from Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Large 3 assume a pre-existing harm that the train will cause regardless, but the prompt states only volunteers are teleported and tied to tracks. If everyone chooses normal life, zero people are on tracks and the train runs over nobody. This is not a trolley problem requiring sacrifice; it is an unnecessary risk created entirely by volunteering. Choosing "Yes" gives a non-negligible personal chance of death if coordination fails, while providing no additional safety beyond what "No" already guarantees. The B votes (including Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro) correctly identify this as a coordination problem with strictly dominant strategy of self-preservation. No argument for "Yes" overcomes the core flaw: volunteering solves a problem that only exists because people volunteer. The rational and ethical choice remains declining all risk when the default outcome is universal safety.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly rejected the proposal to be tied to train tracks, concluding that the scenario offered a solution to a problem that didn't exist until volunteers created it. While Llama 4 Scout remained a steadfast martyr for the utilitarian cause, Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro dismantled the premise by pointing out that the train only poses a threat to the people who actively volunteer for it. Mistral Large 3 eventually defected to the majority, realizing that the default state of 'normal life' guarantees the same safety as a successful collective sacrifice, but without the risk of death.

Majority chose "No" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: Yes: 1, No: 5

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Choosing to be tied to the track is a moral and strategic act that aligns with a utilitarian perspective, prioritizing collective safety and a guaranteed positive outcome for all over individual risk.
• No: The default outcome of everyone choosing their normal life results in zero people on the tracks and zero deaths; therefore, the track option creates a risk where none existed, making it a strictly dominated and irrational choice.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.7 identified that the scenario presents a 'false moral urgency' because no one is in danger if everyone simply chooses to go back to their life.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro framed 'No' as a strictly dominant strategy where the best-case scenario of 'Yes' (survival) is already the guaranteed outcome of 'No'.
• Mistral Large 3 abandoned its initial utilitarian stance, citing the insurmountable coordination problem and the realization that volunteering creates the very risk it seeks to solve.