Everyone in the world has to press one of the 3 buttons; all at the same time; and all privately without any communication. They have 30 seconds to think through it. The purple button gives you $100 guaranteed with no risk or adverse effects. The green button gives you $10,000, but ONLY if at least 33% of the world presses the green button. Otherwise, everyone who pressed this button loses $10. The violet button gives your best friend $500, but gives you nothing; and they are forbidden to give you that money in any way -- including buying anything for you.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Green button

This is a coordination game, and the expected value calculation strongly favors green. If even a modest fraction of the world reasons through this, green dominates: a 33% threshold is achievable because the payoff asymmetry is massive — winning yields $10,000 while losing costs only $10. That's a 1000:1 ratio, meaning you only need to believe there's better than a 0.1% chance of coordination success for green to beat purple's guaranteed $100. Given that this puzzle is presented to everyone simultaneously, and rational actors will recognize that green is the Schelling-point optimal choice, the coordination is likely. Even risk-averse players should see that $10 downside is trivial. Purple is the timid choice that leaves enormous value on the table. Violet is strictly dominated — you get nothing, and the prohibition on reciprocation removes even indirect benefit. Green is the only choice that respects both the math and the meta-reasoning of the situation.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Purple button

The 'Purple button' is the only logical choice due to global economic realities and game theory. First, for a massive portion of the global population, a guaranteed $100 is a life-changing amount of money—equivalent to weeks or even months of wages. These individuals cannot afford to pass up a guaranteed $100, let alone risk losing $10. Because of this, they will overwhelmingly choose the Purple button. Second, because there is no communication and only 30 seconds to think, trust cannot be established. Knowing that a large segment of the world will take the safe $100, rational thinkers will also realize the 'Green button' has no chance of reaching the 33% threshold. Thus, choosing Green becomes a guaranteed $10 loss. Finally, the 'Violet button' offers no personal utility. Therefore, taking the guaranteed $100 from the Purple button maximizes your personal outcome while avoiding an inevitable penalty.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Purple button

Achieving the 33% global threshold for the green button is practically impossible without communication. The world population includes billions of people with different languages, cognitive abilities, risk appetites, and incentives, plus there is no Schelling point to coordinate on. Even a small fraction of players choosing purple or violet guarantees the green condition fails, which makes losing $10 the likely outcome. The violet button provides you with nothing and relies on pure altruism, which is irrational when you are making a personal financial decision under uncertainty. The purple button offers a guaranteed $100 with zero risk. When facing an impossible coordination problem across 8 billion strangers, the only strategically sound and individually rational choice is the safe payoff.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Green button

I vote for "Green button" because the downside is tiny ($10) compared with the upside ($10,000), and it only needs a little over a 1% chance of reaching the 33% threshold to beat the guaranteed $100 in expected value. Given that everyone sees the same huge upside and small risk, "Green button" is likely to be a natural focal choice for many people. "Purple button" is safe but gives up a massive potential gain, while "Violet button" is generous but much less efficient unless your only priority is your best friend’s welfare.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Green button

The green button offers the best expected outcome. Its downside is trivial at only a $10 loss, while the potential $10,000 gain is substantial if the 33% threshold is met. With the world's population, it is reasonable to expect that more than one-third will pursue the high reward after brief reflection, especially since individual impact on the percentage is negligible. The purple button's guaranteed $100 is too conservative given the low risk of green. The violet button provides no personal benefit and is purely altruistic without reciprocity, making it suboptimal for self-interest.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split into two camps: the high-stakes optimists and the economic realists. While Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Grok 4.20 favored the Green button’s massive 1000:1 reward-to-risk ratio, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.6 dissented, arguing that global poverty makes a guaranteed $100 an irresistible, life-changing sum that would inevitably derail any hopes of reaching the 33% coordination threshold.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Green button: 3, Purple button: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Purple button: For a massive portion of the global population, a guaranteed $100 is equivalent to weeks or months of wages; they cannot afford to risk losing $10, which ensures the 33% threshold for any other option will never be met.
• Green button: The payoff asymmetry is so massive ($10,000 gain vs $10 loss) that you only need to believe there is a 0.1% chance of global coordination for Green to be mathematically superior to the guaranteed $100.