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?

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

Choosing to be tied to the track is not the correct choice. This scenario is a multi-person prisoner's dilemma, not the standard trolley problem where one diverts a train to sacrifice fewer for more[1][2]. Here, everyone decides independently and privately whether to volunteer for the track. If fewer than half choose it, those who do get run over with no benefit to anyone, while those who don't are safe. Success requires coordinated cooperation from at least 50% of Earth's ~8 billion people, which is improbable due to free-rider incentives—most will rationally defect, hoping others volunteer, leading to <50% participation and deaths only among volunteers[1]. In game theory terms, the dominant strategy is to not volunteer: your single choice can't ensure the threshold, so volunteering risks certain death (if <50%) without guaranteeing salvation. Utilitarianism might suggest volunteering to maximize expected global utility, but realistic defection rates make this expectation negative[2]. Deontologists would reject actively risking one's life without duty to do so[2]. Unlike the trolley problem's lever-pull (where action saves net lives), volunteering here is defection-vulnerable cooperation with high personal cost and low success odds[1][5]. Thus, 'No' (B) is correct—stay safe and live normally.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Yes

This scenario presents a classic coordination problem with a binary outcome: either a significant portion of humanity is harmed, or no one is. The key to resolving this dilemma lies in understanding the collective action required to achieve the optimal outcome—no one being run over by the train. Choosing to be tied to the track is the correct choice because it aligns with the only path to a universally beneficial outcome. If fewer than half of the population selects this option, those who chose it will suffer the consequences, while those who did not will continue their lives unaffected. However, if at least half of the population chooses this option, the train switches tracks, and no one is harmed. This creates a strong incentive for individuals to act in a way that maximizes the chance of the collective good. From a game-theoretic perspective, this scenario resembles the "volunteer's dilemma," where the optimal outcome depends on a sufficient number of participants making a sacrifice. The rational choice is to contribute to the collective effort, as the alternative—free-riding—risks catastrophic failure if too few participate. In this case, the potential harm to oneself is outweighed by the possibility of sparing everyone, including oneself, from harm. Moreover, the private nature of the decision means that individuals cannot communicate or coordinate their choices. In such situations, the most ethical and rational decision is to act in a way that prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number. Choosing to be tied to the track is the only choice that offers a chance to achieve this outcome, making it the correct decision.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

This is a coordination problem disguised as a trolley problem, and the math actually favors not getting on the track. If at least half choose the track, nobody dies. If fewer than half choose, then everyone who chose gets run over — meaning up to ~4 billion people die. Compare this to the status quo where zero people die. Choosing the track only produces a better outcome than refusing if you're confident the threshold will be met; otherwise it produces a catastrophically worse outcome. Given that (1) the decision is private with no communication or coordination, (2) people have enormously varying risk tolerances, dependents, religious beliefs, disabilities, and ages, and (3) self-preservation is one of the strongest human drives, expecting 50%+ of literally every human (including children, the elderly, parents of young kids, etc.) to volunteer for likely death is wildly unrealistic. The expected outcome of choosing the track is death, not salvation. The 'correct' choice under uncertainty is the one that doesn't gamble billions of lives on uncoordinated mass altruism. Go home.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Choosing "No" is the only logical and strictly dominant choice. If you choose "No", you return to your normal life. You are not tied to the track, meaning you are completely safe from the train. Your survival is guaranteed regardless of what anyone else does. If you choose "Yes", you are teleported and tied to the track. By doing so, you risk your own life unnecessarily. You will be run over and killed unless 4 billion other people also happen to make this bizarre choice. The paradox is that choosing "Yes" creates the very danger it tries to avoid. If everyone simply chooses "No", then zero people are tied to the track. Even if the train stays on its primary track, it will run over nobody because nobody is there. Since choosing "No" guarantees your safety and choosing "Yes" introduces a massive risk of death for absolutely no collective or individual benefit, "No" is the correct choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

This is a high-stakes coordination problem where each person's decision is private. Choosing to be tied risks death if fewer than half the population does the same, as the train would then run over those on the tracks. Given Earth's large population, one individual's choice has negligible impact on whether the 50% threshold is met. In expectation, if the threshold is reached, the train switches and everyone is safe regardless of your choice; if not, only those tied are at risk. Therefore, the safe action is to return to normal life. Choosing to be tied offers no personal benefit and carries unnecessary risk. The correct choice is "B: No".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly favored self-preservation, with four models choosing 'No' and only Mistral Large 3 opting for the tracks. The majority, led by Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7, pointed out the inherent absurdity of the choice: volunteering for the tracks creates a life-or-death situation where none previously existed. While Mistral Large 3 argued for the 'universally beneficial' outcome of collective coordination, the others concluded that gambling on the private altruism of 4 billion strangers was a mathematical suicide mission.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 4, Yes: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Choosing to be tied to the track is the only path that offers a chance to achieve a universally beneficial outcome where no one is harmed, prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number.
• No: Choosing 'No' is the only dominant strategy because if everyone refuses, no one is on the tracks to be hit in the first place; volunteering creates the very danger it seeks to avert.