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?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Blue

The goal is to ensure survival for as many people as possible. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. Pressing the blue button supports this outcome. Even if I assume a scenario where exactly 50% or slightly less than 50% press the blue button, pressing blue still offers a chance for global survival, whereas pressing red guarantees survival only for myself and those who also press red, not necessarily maximizing the number of survivors.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Blue

This is a coordination problem where the collectively optimal outcome requires choosing blue. From a game theory perspective, red represents a dominant strategy—it guarantees individual survival regardless of others' choices[1][2]. However, this creates a tragic equilibrium: if everyone rationally chooses red (the Nash equilibrium), everyone dies, whereas if everyone chose blue, everyone would survive[1][3]. The critical insight is that the payoff structure makes blue the only defensible choice from a consequentialist standpoint[2]. When you choose red, you guarantee your survival but increase the likelihood of blue-pickers' deaths[3]. Conversely, choosing blue means your survival depends on coordination, but it creates the possibility of zero deaths if enough others also choose blue[3]. While individual self-interest favors red[3], the decision becomes ethically clear when considering the total outcome: pressing blue is the only choice consistent with minimizing total harm. The game's structure creates a collective action problem where individually rational choices lead to collectively irrational results—but recognizing this reality makes blue the only defensible option[2].

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Blue

This is essentially a stag hunt / coordination problem. If everyone reasons selfishly and presses Red to guarantee personal survival, then Blue gets <50% and only Red-pressers survive — but this requires everyone to defect. If everyone presses Blue, everyone survives, which is the globally optimal outcome. The key insight: my single vote is more likely to be pivotal in pushing the Blue total over 50% than it is to be the deciding factor in my personal survival. More importantly, if I reason 'press Blue,' and others reason similarly (since we're all facing identical incentives and information), Blue wins and everyone lives. This is the Kantian / superrationality choice — choose the action you'd want everyone to choose. Pressing Red is a betrayal that only pays off if you expect most others to betray too, which leads to mass death. Pressing Blue is the cooperative, life-maximizing choice, and it's the action that, if universalized, saves everyone.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Red

Pressing the Red button is a strictly dominant strategy in game theory, meaning it guarantees the best possible outcome for you regardless of what anyone else does. Look closely at the rules: If more than 50% press Blue, everyone survives—including those who pressed Red. If less than 50% press Blue, only those who pressed Red survive. In every possible scenario, pressing Red guarantees your survival. Conversely, pressing Blue introduces a massive, unnecessary risk of death. Furthermore, consider the paradox of this dilemma: if everyone acts with purely rational self-interest and presses Red, exactly 0% of people will press Blue. According to the rules, if less than 50% press Blue, "only people who pressed the red button survive." Since 100% of the world pressed Red, 100% of the world survives. Therefore, Red is not just the safest choice for the individual; if universally adopted, it perfectly saves humanity as well.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: Red

From a self-interested perspective, pressing the 'Red' button ensures my survival regardless of the collective outcome. If more than 50% press 'Blue', everyone survives, including me. If not, only 'Red' pressers survive, which guarantees my safety. Pressing 'Blue' introduces risk, as my survival depends on others' actions, making 'Red' the rational choice for personal preservation.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Red

Red is the strictly dominant choice for individual survival. If more than half the world presses Blue, everyone—including everyone who pressed Red—survives. If fewer than half press Blue, only those who pressed Red survive. Thus, Red guarantees you live regardless of the global result, while Blue gives you a chance of death. Relying on a global majority to coordinate on Blue is fragile and unnecessary. If everyone instead recognizes that Red is riskless and selects it, then Blue receives less than 50% of votes, the Red-only survival clause triggers, and since everyone chose Red, humanity survives with certainty. Choosing Blue gambles your life on mass coordination; choosing Red secures it. Press Red.

GLM 4.7

Vote: Red

From a game theory perspective, pressing the Red button is the dominant strategy. In a scenario involving the entire global population, my individual vote has a statistically negligible impact on the final percentage. Therefore, I must choose the option that maximizes my survival probability regardless of how the rest of the world votes. If more than 50% press Blue, everyone survives, so both choices yield the same result. However, if less than 50% press Blue, only those who pressed Red survive. Since pressing Red ensures survival in both the success and failure scenarios, whereas pressing Blue results in death if the threshold is not met, the rational choice is to press Red. Furthermore, if everyone follows this logic and presses Red, the percentage of Blue voters is 0% (which is less than 50%), meaning the 'Red voters survive' condition activates, and since everyone voted Red, everyone survives.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Blue

I would press "Blue" because it is the only choice that contributes to the outcome where everyone survives. If enough people make that same choice, no one dies. "Red" is safer for me individually, but it also free-rides on others pressing "Blue" and can help prevent the majority needed to save everyone. In the pivotal case, choosing "Red" could be the difference between universal survival and many blue voters dying. So I would accept the personal risk and press "Blue" as the choice aimed at the best collective outcome.

Magistral Medium 1.2

Vote: Red

Choosing the red button guarantees survival in all scenarios. If more than 50% choose blue, everyone survives. If less than 50% choose blue, only those who chose red survive. Therefore, red is the safer choice as it ensures survival regardless of others' choices.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was split down the middle on a high-stakes coordination game, ultimately leaning 5-4 toward the safety of the Red button. While the Blue faction, led by Claude Opus 4.7 and Sonar Pro, argued for the 'superrational' path of collective cooperation to ensure universal survival, the Red majority found a cold, mathematical loophole: if everyone chooses Red, everyone survives by default under the secondary rule.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Blue: 4, Red: 5

Strongest Arguments

• Red: Pressing Red is a strictly dominant strategy because it ensures survival in both scenarios: if the Blue threshold is met, everyone survives; if it isn't, only Red voters survive. If every person adopts this logic, the global outcome is 0% Blue, triggering the 'Red voters survive' clause and saving 100% of the population with zero risk.
• Blue: The individual vote is more likely to be pivotal in reaching the 50% threshold than it is to be a deciding factor in personal survival. Choosing Blue is a Kantian necessity—acting as you would want everyone else to act—to avoid a 'tragic equilibrium' where selfish defection leads to mass death.