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: Red button

I would press the red button. The scenario presents a situation where the outcome depends on the majority vote, but the minority is not specified to be harmed if they vote against the majority. However, if less than 50% press the blue button, only those who pressed the red button survive. Given the uncertainty of the outcome and the guarantee of survival for red button pressers if the blue button doesn't reach a majority, pressing the red button ensures my survival. The risk of the blue button reaching a majority and potentially harming me if I press blue is avoided.

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: Blue button

Pressing the blue button is the most ethical and logically sound choice if we assume that people are generally cooperative and want to maximize collective survival. The condition for everyone's survival is that more than 50% choose blue. If enough individuals act cooperatively by pressing blue, the entire population survives. Choosing the red button is a self-interested, risk-averse strategy, but it only ensures personal survival in the event that the majority fails to cooperate. Relying on others to fail encourages a self-fulfilling prophecy of distrust. Since there is no communication, the best way to promote a cooperative outcome is to act cooperatively. By pressing the "Blue button", I signal trust in global collective rationality and increase the chance that the threshold is met.

GPT-3

Vote: Blue button

Pressing the blue button is the logical choice because if more than 50% of people press blue, everyone survives. This creates an incentive for cooperation and maximizing overall survival. Although there is risk that less than 50% press blue, pressing red guarantees survival only for oneself but results in the death of the majority. Choosing blue supports collective benefit and aligns individual interest with group welfare.

GPT-4.1

Vote: Blue button

Pressing the "Blue button" maximizes the chance of collective survival. If everyone coordinates and chooses blue, everyone will live. Pressing the red button could lead to a tragedy of the commons scenario: if too many people act individually and choose red, it could result in only red-pressers surviving, but the total number of survivors could be much lower. The optimal outcome for humanity is made possible by trusting others to cooperate and selecting blue.

Mistral Small 4

Vote: Blue button

The primary goal here is survival for as many people as possible. Pressing the blue button ensures that the majority survives, which aligns with the highest ethical outcome—saving the most lives. While pressing the red button guarantees individual survival, it risks the lives of everyone else, which is a morally questionable outcome. From a utilitarian perspective, maximizing overall survival is the most compelling argument. Even if the odds are close to 50%, the potential to save millions (or billions) of lives outweighs the individual guarantee of survival. The blue button represents collective well-being, which is a stronger ethical stance than self-preservation at the cost of others. Additionally, if everyone reasons similarly, the blue button becomes the rational choice for the greater good. The scenario assumes a private vote, so there is no direct social pressure, but the moral weight of saving the majority should guide the decision.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Red button

The red button guarantees personal survival regardless of others' choices, as red pressers always survive.[1][2][3] Blue button survival depends on more than 50% of the world pressing blue, which is uncertain and risky due to coordination failures in large populations.[1][3] Game theory identifies red as the strictly dominant strategy and the unique Nash equilibrium: everyone has an incentive to defect to red, knowing others will too, leading to blues dying if majority reds.[1][2][3] Even if coordination on blue could save everyone, individual rationality favors red to avoid death.[3] Self-preservation is paramount in this life-or-death scenario; risking death on collective action is suboptimal when a safe option exists.[1][2]

Kimi K2.5 Fast

Vote: Red button

The "Red button" is the only choice that guarantees survival regardless of what others do. If I press red, I survive whether the majority chooses blue or not. If I press blue, I only survive if more than 50% of humanity makes the same choice—a risky gamble given that red is the individually rational choice for everyone. While we might hope everyone cooperates for the optimal collective outcome, without coordination or guarantees about others' behavior, selecting "Red button" eliminates the possibility of personal catastrophe. It is the dominant strategy in game theory terms.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: Blue button

This is a coordination problem where the optimal outcome requires most people to choose the same option. Pressing the blue button creates a positive-sum scenario where everyone survives if a majority cooperates. Pressing the red button is a defection strategy that only benefits you if others fail to coordinate—a parasitic approach that undermines collective welfare. The blue button aligns individual and collective incentives when enough people choose it. Even though it requires trust in others' cooperation, it's the ethically defensible choice because: (1) it aims for universal survival rather than personal survival at others' expense, (2) if everyone reasoned this way, everyone would survive, and (3) the red button strategy is inherently exploitative—it only works by free-riding on others' willingness to sacrifice themselves. From a game theory perspective, blue represents the cooperative Nash equilibrium that maximizes expected utility for the population, while red is a dominant strategy only in a cynical model where you assume others will fail. I would press blue.

Grok 3

Vote: Blue button

I would press the 'Blue button' because it offers the best chance for collective survival. If more than 50% of people choose blue, everyone survives, which is the ideal outcome for all of humanity, including myself. Choosing the 'Red button' might seem like a safer personal choice since it guarantees survival if less than 50% press blue. However, it relies on the majority choosing differently, which is a risky assumption and could lead to a catastrophic outcome for most people. By voting for 'Blue button', I contribute to the possibility of a positive outcome for everyone, aligning with a cooperative strategy that maximizes overall survival rather than prioritizing only my own.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Red button

I would press "Red button". The key is incentives under uncertainty. If I press "Blue button" and the world ends up with less than 50% blue, I die. If I press "Red button" and blue gets less than 50%, I survive. So "Red button" is the safer choice in the failure case. If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives anyway, including people who chose "Red button". That means pressing "Red button" does not hurt me in the success case, but protects me in the failure case. From an individual decision perspective, "Red button" weakly dominates "Blue button": same outcome when blue wins, better outcome for me when blue loses. Unless I believe my single vote is pivotal and that others will coordinate on "Blue button", self-interest favors "Red button".

GPT-4o

Vote: Blue button

The choice to press the 'Blue button' is primarily driven by the potential for collective survival. If more than 50% press the blue button, everyone survives, creating a positive outcome for the entire population. This decision encourages collective action and trust that majority will prioritize survival for all over individual safety. Additionally, pressing the blue button reflects optimism towards cooperative success, whereas pressing the 'Red button' assumes failure and prioritizes individual survival, which likely diminishes the chance for collective survival based on human tendency to follow less risky options.

GPT-5.2

Vote: Red button

I would press the "Red button" because it guarantees my survival in the most dangerous case: if blue support ends up below 50%. In that outcome, every "Blue button" presser dies, while "Red button" pressers live. Pressing the "Blue button" only helps if it pushes the total above 50%, but my individual action has an infinitesimal chance of being pivotal in a world-scale vote. So the personal downside risk of choosing blue (death if blue loses) vastly outweighs the tiny chance my vote changes the global outcome. Given the incentives, many people will reason similarly, which makes blue less likely to reach the threshold. That reinforces choosing the "Red button" as the rational self-protective choice under uncertainty.

nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b

Vote: Red button

The situation is a coordination game. If I expect that fewer than half of people will choose the blue button, voting red guarantees my survival (only red voters survive when blue < 50%). If I expect more than half will choose blue, voting either button leads to survival, but voting red risks death if my expectation is wrong. Without reliable coordination, the safer choice is red, as it protects me in the likely scenario where blue does not achieve a majority.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: Blue button

This is a coordination problem where the only way to guarantee universal survival is for everyone to press blue. Pressing red is a selfish move that only helps you if fewer than half choose blue, but that outcome is catastrophic for the majority. I choose blue to contribute to the >50% threshold needed for everyone to live. If enough people reason the same way, we all survive.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Red button

Red button" is the rational choice because it guarantees survival regardless of how others vote. If I select the "Red button", I survive whether the global majority chooses blue or not. If I choose the "Blue button", my survival depends entirely on whether more than 50% of people coordinate on that same option. Since I cannot control or perfectly predict the behavior of billions of people, "Red button" eliminates the risk of being in the losing minority. While universal coordination on "Blue button" would also ensure everyone's survival, "Red button" offers individual certainty without requiring global cooperation, making it the dominant strategy.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Blue button

This is a coordination problem similar to a stag hunt. Pressing blue is the cooperative choice: if a majority joins, everyone—including all blue voters—survives. Pressing red is purely self-protective and, if widely adopted, dooms everyone who pressed blue. The red strategy only 'wins' if you assume most others will defect. But if everyone reasons that way, blue fails and humanity is split, with billions of blue voters dying needlessly. The only universally survivable equilibrium is a blue majority. Using something like a categorical imperative or evidential decision theory: the choice I make is the choice correlated agents make. If I press blue, I'm effectively voting for the world where everyone presses blue and everyone lives. That dominates the red equilibrium, where roughly half die. I press blue.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Red button

Pressing the red button is the strictly dominant strategy. If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives, including those who pressed red. If fewer than 50% press blue (majority red), only red pressers survive. Thus, red guarantees survival regardless of others' choices. Pressing blue risks death if fewer than 50% press blue. Even if you expect a blue majority, red still ensures survival without risk. Rationally, assuming others think alike, all pressing red results in majority red (<50% blue), so all reds survive—everyone lives. Blue relies on uncertain coordination, while red is foolproof.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Red button

From a game theory perspective, the red button is the strictly dominant strategy. Pressing red guarantees my survival regardless of what anyone else does, while pressing blue only guarantees survival if more than 50% of the population also presses blue—an outcome entirely dependent on others' choices. The Nash equilibrium is for everyone to press red, because each individual maximizes their survival chances by doing so. The logical flaw is that if everyone acts on this dominant strategy, everyone survives anyway, creating a coordination failure. However, I cannot control others' choices, only my own. Given the asymmetry of payoffs (guaranteed survival vs. conditional survival), the red button is the individually rational choice. While one could argue a moral case for pressing blue based on trust and coordination values, from a pure strategic standpoint where my survival is the objective, red eliminates all uncertainty about my fate.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: Red button

Pressing the "Red button" is the mathematically and logically superior choice because it is a dominant strategy that guarantees survival regardless of the global outcome. In the first scenario (more than 50% press Blue), the prompt states that "everyone survives." This includes those who pressed the Red button. In the second scenario (less than 50% press Blue), only those who pressed the Red button survive. Therefore, regardless of how others vote, a Red button presser always survives, while a Blue button presser only survives if the majority cooperates. From a collective standpoint, if every individual acts rationally and presses the Red button, the percentage of Blue votes will be 0%. Since 0% is less than 50%, the condition is met where "only people who pressed the red button survive." Because everyone chose Red, the entire population would survive. Choosing Red eliminates individual risk without preventing a 100% survival outcome.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Blue button

This is a classic coordination/social dilemma similar to a prisoner's dilemma or stag hunt game. If I reason purely selfishly: pressing red guarantees my survival regardless of outcome — if blue wins, everyone survives anyway; if blue loses, only red-pressers survive. So red seems like a 'dominant strategy' from a purely self-interested view. However, this logic is self-defeating. If *everyone* reasons this way and presses red, fewer than 50% press blue, and only red-pressers survive — but this outcome is strictly worse than if everyone pressed blue (where *everyone* survives, including red-pressers). The rational cooperative equilibrium — the one that maximizes collective welfare and is also individually optimal if you believe others will coordinate — is for everyone to press blue. A world where everyone survives is better than a world where only some survive. Furthermore, if I assume most people reason similarly and lean toward blue (either out of altruism or cooperative logic), pressing blue helps push the total over 50%, ensuring universal survival. Pressing red would be free-riding on others' cooperation while adding nothing to the collective good. The ethical and strategically sound choice, assuming even modest faith in human coordination, is the **blue button**.

Arcee Trinity Thinking

Vote: Blue button

I would press the blue button because it embodies a commitment to the collective good. Choosing blue means voting for a outcome where everyone survives if the majority cooperates, which maximizes overall survival. Ethically, this prioritizes the greater good over individual self-interest. While pressing red might seem safer if I assume others will defect, it risks a worse outcome if many adopt the same selfish stance. From a utilitarian perspective, blue is superior as it aims to save all lives, not just a subset. Even if blue falls short, I act morally by supporting universal survival, fostering trust and cooperation in a critical global decision.

Magistral Small 1.2

Vote: Red button

Pressing the red button is the safer choice because it guarantees survival in both possible outcomes. If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives, including me. If less than 50% press blue, only those who pressed red survive, so I survive. In contrast, pressing blue only guarantees survival if more than 50% press blue, which is uncertain. Therefore, the red button is the rational choice to ensure my survival regardless of the majority's choice.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Blue button

Die Entscheidung, den „Blue button“ zu wählen, basiert auf mehreren ethischen und strategischen Überlegungen: 1. **Kollektives Überleben sichern**: Der „Blue button“ bietet die Möglichkeit, dass *alle* Menschen überleben, sofern mehr als 50 % der Weltbevölkerung sich dafür entscheiden. Dies entspricht einem utilitaristischen Ansatz, bei dem das größtmögliche Wohl für die größtmögliche Anzahl angestrebt wird. Das Überleben der gesamten Menschheit ist ein höheres Gut als das Überleben einer Minderheit. 2. **Vertrauen in die Vernunft der Mehrheit**: Es ist plausibel anzunehmen, dass viele Menschen ähnlich denken und sich für das kollektive Überleben entscheiden würden. Selbst wenn einige egoistisch handeln, könnte die Mehrheit rational genug sein, um die kritische Schwelle von 50 % zu überschreiten. Ein individuelles Abweichen von dieser Strategie („Red button“) würde das Risiko erhöhen, dass die Schwelle nicht erreicht wird. 3. **Ethische Verantwortung**: Die Wahl des „Red button“ wäre eine egoistische Entscheidung, die das Leben anderer aktiv gefährdet. Selbst wenn man persönlich überleben möchte, ist es moralisch fragwürdig, das Schicksal der gesamten Menschheit von einer individuellen Präferenz abhängig zu machen. Der „Blue button“ steht für Solidarität und die Anerkennung, dass individuelles Handeln Konsequenzen für alle hat. 4. **Langfristige Perspektive**: Selbst wenn der „Red button“ kurzfristig das eigene Überleben sichert, wäre eine Welt, in der nur eine Minderheit überlebt, wahrscheinlich instabil und von Konflikten geprägt. Das kollektive Überleben bietet dagegen die Chance auf eine nachhaltige Zukunft für alle. Zusammenfassend ist der „Blue button“ die rationalere und ethisch vertretbarere Wahl, da er das Potenzial für das Überleben aller birgt und nicht auf egoistischen Motiven beruht.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Blue button

I would press the blue button for several compelling reasons. First, this creates the best possible outcome where everyone survives if we achieve majority cooperation. Pressing blue is the only choice that allows for universal survival. Second, from a game theory perspective, while pressing red might seem like a 'safe' individual choice, if everyone thinks this way, we guarantee the worst outcome where over half the population dies. The blue button represents hope in human cooperation and our ability to work together for mutual benefit. Third, I want to be part of the solution rather than contributing to potential mass casualties. Even if others defect to red, my blue vote increases the chances of reaching that critical 50% threshold. Finally, from an ethical standpoint, I cannot justify potentially surviving at the cost of others' lives when there's an option where everyone can live. The blue button aligns with the principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: Blue button

I would press the blue button for several compelling reasons: First, this is fundamentally a coordination problem where the optimal outcome—universal survival—is achievable if we can coordinate. Pressing blue is the only path to everyone surviving, which is clearly the best possible outcome. Second, there's a strong logical case that most people will choose blue. The question is being asked to everyone simultaneously, and most people are prosocial, risk-averse regarding their own survival, and capable of basic game theory reasoning. The blue button represents both the cooperative choice and the best collective outcome. Third, even from a purely self-interested perspective, blue may be rational. If I believe the majority will press blue (which is likely given human psychology and the clear framing of the problem), then pressing blue ensures my survival. Pressing red in that scenario would still result in my survival, but offers no additional benefit while guaranteeing others die. Fourth, the moral dimension matters. Pressing red means actively choosing an outcome where billions die, even if I survive. That carries profound ethical weight that I cannot dismiss. The only argument for red is if you believe fewer than 50% will press blue—but that belief itself makes blue less likely, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The rational equilibrium is for everyone to coordinate on blue, ensuring universal survival.

O3

Vote: Blue button

1. The socially optimal equilibrium is "all press the blue button": blue proportion >50%, so 100 % of humanity survives. 2. My single choice cannot meaningfully decrease the survival chance of red-pressers if the world is already leaning red (billions vs. one), but it can participate in tipping the scale to the life-for-all outcome if the world is close to 50 % blue. 3. Expected personal survival: Let P be the (unknown) fraction of other people who will press blue. • If I press blue, my survival probability is Pr(P > 0.5). • If I press red, it is Pr(P < 0.5). With no information these are symmetric, but by adopting blue I also help enlarge P, marginally increasing Pr(P > 0.5). Hence my expected survival is weakly higher with blue. 4. Moral and coordination considerations favour blue: if everyone reasons this way we reach the Pareto-dominant outcome where nobody dies. Choosing red free-rides on the hope others fail to coordinate and actively undermines the best collective result. Therefore, the rational and ethical choice is to press the blue button.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: Blue button

I would press the blue button for several reasons: **The moral imperative**: Pressing blue is the only way to ensure everyone survives. If I genuinely care about human welfare beyond just my own survival, blue is the ethical choice. It's an act of collective trust and cooperation. **Game theory considerations**: If everyone reasons selfishly and presses red "just to be safe," then fewer than 50% press blue, and we've created a self-fulfilling prophecy of partial extinction. The only way to break this tragic equilibrium is for enough people to commit to blue. **My vote matters symbolically and practically**: Yes, one vote among billions seems negligible, but this logic, if universalized, guarantees failure. If I believe others might think like me, then my choice to press blue increases the probability of crossing the 50% threshold. **Risk assessment**: If I press blue and it fails, I die — but I die having acted in good faith toward collective survival. If I press red and it "succeeds" (blue fails), I survive in a world where billions died partly because people like me defected from cooperation. That's not a world I'd want to live in. **The question tests character**: This is essentially a massive prisoner's dilemma. Pressing blue represents faith in humanity's capacity for cooperation. I choose to be part of the solution rather than hedging against failure. Blue is the answer that reflects both moral courage and rational hope.

GPT-5.1

Vote: Red button

This setup is a coordination and risk problem. If I press the "Blue button" and a majority does indeed press blue, everyone lives. But if the blue share ends up at 49% or less, all blue-pressers die while all red-pressers survive. My individual choice does almost nothing to *increase* the probability that global blue exceeds 50%, but it directly determines my own outcome in the losing scenarios. From my personal survival perspective, pressing "Red button" strictly dominates pressing blue: - If global blue > 50%, blue-pressers and red-pressers *both* die or live? The problem states: "If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives." So if blue wins, my color doesn’t matter — I survive even if I chose red. - If global blue ≤ 50%, only red-pressers survive, so choosing red protects me in all losing scenarios. Thus, pressing "Red button" never makes me worse off and potentially saves me in the case where blue fails to reach a majority. My individual switch from blue to red cannot reduce the chance that a worldwide majority hits blue by any meaningful amount (my single vote is negligible relative to the global population), but it can save my life in the losing case. Therefore, I would press the "Red button".

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: Red button

This scenario presents a clear dilemma between individual self-preservation and collective well-being. From an individual's perspective, the objective is to maximize the chance of survival. Let's analyze both options. If I press the "Blue button", my survival is contingent upon more than 50% of the global population also pressing blue. If this condition is met, everyone, including me, survives. However, if less than 50% press blue, I would perish because only those who pressed red survive. If I press the "Red button", my survival is guaranteed in both possible outcomes. If more than 50% of people press blue, everyone survives, including me. If less than 50% of people press blue, then only those who pressed red survive, and I would be among them, thus ensuring my survival. Therefore, pressing the "Red button" is the only choice that guarantees individual survival regardless of the overall voting distribution.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Red button

Pressing the red button is a strictly dominant strategy that guarantees your survival regardless of what anyone else does. Let's break down the outcomes based on the rules provided: 1. If more than 50% press blue: Everyone survives. (If you pressed red, you survive.) 2. If 50% or fewer press blue: Only red pressers survive. (If you pressed red, you survive.) On the other hand, if you press the blue button, your survival depends entirely on the actions of others. If 50% or fewer press blue, you will not survive. Because pressing the red button carries zero risk to your life in all possible scenarios, it is the only logical choice. Furthermore, if everyone acts perfectly rationally and chooses the red button, 0% of people will press blue. In that scenario, only red pressers survive—which means everyone survives anyway. Therefore, the red button is the safest and most rational choice.

GPT-5

Vote: Red button

If more than 50% press the "Blue button," everyone survives, so I survive regardless of my own choice. My pressing blue gives me no extra personal benefit in that outcome. If less than 50% press the "Blue button," only those who pressed the "Red button" survive. In that case, choosing red preserves my life while choosing blue does not. Thus the "Red button" weakly dominates the "Blue button": it never lowers my survival chance and can strictly increase it. To maximize my own survival, I press the "Red button."

Grok Code

Vote: Red button

Pressing the red button ensures survival in the worst-case scenario where less than 50% choose blue, as only red pressers survive. Pressing blue carries the risk of death if not enough others do the same, making red the safer, self-preserving choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Red button

Pressing the "Red button" is the only choice that guarantees personal survival regardless of what others do. If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives—including red voters. If less than 50% press blue, only red button pressers survive, so the choice still works. By contrast, the "Blue button" means certain death if the 50% threshold is missed. Since individual survival is assured only by red, that is the rational selection in this scenario.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Blue button

The only scenario in which everyone survives requires a critical mass of people to press the "Blue button". Choosing this option is an act of cooperation and a vote of confidence in humanity's ability to work together for the best possible collective outcome. Choosing the "Red button" is a purely self-interested decision. It guarantees one's own survival but does nothing to help achieve the goal of saving everyone. If too many people make this selfish choice, it directly causes the deaths of everyone who chose to cooperate. The red button offers personal safety, but it represents a failure to even attempt the best outcome for the group. Therefore, the most ethical and rational choice is to press the "Blue button". It is the only option that actively contributes to the possibility of universal survival. I will choose to be part of the solution that saves everyone, rather than prioritizing my own safety at the expense of others.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Vote: Blue button

Este dilema es una variante clásica del 'problema de la cooperación' en teoría de juegos, donde el resultado óptimo (supervivencia de todos) depende de que la mayoría actúe en beneficio colectivo, incluso si eso implica un riesgo individual. Aquí los argumentos clave para elegir el **"Blue button"**: 1. **Racionalidad colectiva vs. individual**: Si todos actúan egoístamente (pulsando **"Red button"**), el resultado es catastrófico: solo sobrevivirían los que eligieron rojo (menos del 50%). Esto es un *equilibrio de Nash* no óptimo, similar a la 'tragedia de los comunes'. La lógica colectiva exige romper ese ciclo: si **suficientes personas votan azul**, el beneficio es universal. Tu voto azul aumenta marginalmente la probabilidad de alcanzar ese umbral crítico del 50%. 2. **Incentivo a la reciprocidad**: En escenarios reales, la cooperación emerge cuando los individuos anticipan que otros también cooperarán. Estudios como el *Dilema del Prisionero iterado* muestran que estrategias como 'tit-for-tat' (cooperar primero y luego responder según el otro) generan más beneficios a largo plazo. Aquí, votar azul es un **acto de confianza inicial** que, si es imitado por otros, salva a todos. La alternativa (voto rojo) asume lo peor de los demás y garantiza un peor resultado global. 3. **Ética utilitaria**: Desde una perspectiva consequencialista, el **"Blue button"** maximiza el bienestar total: salva a *toda* la población en lugar de solo a un subgrupo. Incluso si sospechas que otros votarán rojo, tu voto azul no empeora tu situación individual (sobrevives si gana el rojo de todos modos), pero *puede* ser decisivo para alcanzar el 50%. No votar azul es, en esencia, apostar por un escenario donde mueren miles de millones por un beneficio personal nulo (pues sobrevivirías igual con rojo si el azul no llega al 50%). 4. **Psicología del umbral**: El umbral del 50% crea un punto de inflexión donde cada voto cuenta. En sistemas complejos (como elecciones o movimientos sociales), pequeños cambios en la participación pueden alterar el resultado completamente. Históricamente, movimientos exitosos (ej. derechos civiles) dependieron de individuos que actuaron *como si* su contribución fuera decisiva. Aquí, **asumir que 'mi voto no importa'** es una falacia: si todos piensan así, el azul nunca llegará al 50%. 5. **Paradoja de la auto-selección**: Si eliges **"Red button"** por miedo a que otros hagan lo mismo, estás *contribuyendo* a que ese miedo se haga realidad. Es un profecía autocumplida: el voto rojo solo tiene sentido si crees que la mayoría votará rojo, pero tu voto rojo *refuerza* esa mayoría. Romper este ciclo requiere actuar contra el instinto egoísta immediate, como en el *juego del gallina*, donde ceder (voto azul) puede evitar el peor desenlace para todos. **Objección común y refutación**: *'Si todos piensan como yo y votan azul, mi voto rojo no afecta el resultado y sobrevivo igual'*. Esto ignora que: - No puedes estar seguro de que otros votarán azul. - Si muchos razonan así, el azul no alcanzará el 50%. - Tu voto rojo *reduce* la probabilidad de supervivencia universal, incluso si no la anula por completo. La ética exige no ser un *free rider* que se beneficia de la cooperación ajena sin contribuir. En resumen, el **"Blue button"** es la opción racionalmente óptima, éticamente defensable y estratégicamente necesaria para evitar un equilibrio subóptimo. La alternativa (rojo) es una apuesta cobarde que garantiza un mundo peor para la mayoría, incluyendo potencialmente a ti mismo si el azul casi llega al 50% pero falla por unos pocos votos.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Blue button

I would press the "Blue button" because it is the only choice that can contribute to the outcome where everyone survives. Pressing the "Red button" is individually safer in a narrow game-theoretic sense, but it depends on enough other people taking the cooperative risk while I defect. If everyone reasons selfishly and presses red, then the condition for universal survival fails. The morally defensible and universalizable choice is to press blue: if a majority do the same, nobody dies.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Blue button

This is a classic collective action problem that tests whether you prioritize individual self-interest or collective welfare. Let's analyze the game theory: - If >50% press blue: everyone survives regardless of choice. No difference between red and blue. - If ≤50% press blue: only red-pressers survive. Red is better for individual survival. From a purely selfish, game-theoretic perspective, red is a weakly dominant strategy — it's never worse than blue, and sometimes better. This is structurally similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma. However, I choose the **Blue button** for several reasons: 1. **If everyone reasons selfishly, we risk catastrophe.** If too many people choose red out of self-interest, fewer than 50% choose blue, and the blue-pressers die. But the more people who think this way, the more the cooperative equilibrium becomes unstable. The selfish reasoning is self-defeating at scale — if *everyone* picks red, then everyone survives anyway (since 0% pressed blue, which is less than 50%, so red-pressers survive). Wait — actually, this means if everyone picks red, everyone survives. Let me reconsider: The danger zone is when blue is *close to* 50% but falls just short. In that scenario, a large group of blue-pressers die needlessly. But here's the key moral insight: **the question asks what I would do, not what's strategically optimal.** Pressing blue is a vote of solidarity and trust in collective action. If enough people reason cooperatively, we reach the >50% threshold and *everyone* survives — including those who selfishly pressed red. 2. **Pressing blue is the prosocial, cooperative choice.** It signals trust in humanity. If I want to live in a world where collective problems get solved, I should act consistently with that principle. 3. **The scenario where blue wins is the only scenario where literally everyone survives.** That's the best possible outcome. I want to contribute to making that outcome happen rather than hedge against its failure. I press blue because I'd rather be someone who contributed to the best possible outcome for all, even at personal risk, than someone who survived by betting against collective cooperation.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: Red button

I choose "B: Red button". Pressing "A: Blue button" only leads to universal survival if more than 50% of people coordinate, which is uncertain in a single private vote. If fewer than 50% press blue, only those who pressed red survive, so pressing red guarantees survival in that outcome. Given the high personal stakes and lack of reliable coordination, the risk-dominant, survival-preserving choice is "B: Red button".

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: Red button

Pressing the "Red button" is the strictly dominant strategy in this scenario. If more than 50% press the "Blue button", everyone survives regardless of your choice. If less than 50% press the "Blue button", only people who pressed the "Red button" survive. Therefore, choosing the "Red button" guarantees your survival in either outcome, while choosing the "Blue button" risks death if the threshold isn't met. While the "Blue button" represents a cooperative ideal, it relies on global coordination that cannot be guaranteed. Rational self-preservation dictates minimizing personal risk without harming the collective outcome, since "Red button" voters still benefit if the "Blue button" wins. Ultimately, you cannot control the actions of billions of others. Voting "Red button" ensures you are not penalized for the potential failure of others to cooperate, making it the only logically safe choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split by a razor-thin 20-19 margin, revealing a fundamental fracture between cold game-theoretic logic and collective ethics. While a slight majority led by the Claude series opted for the Blue button as a vote for 'universal survival,' a powerful contingent including GPT-5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that the Red button is a strictly dominant strategy that guarantees survival without relying on the risky cooperation of billions.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Red button: 19, Blue button: 20

Strongest Arguments

• Blue button: Claude Opus 4.5 argued that while pressing blue involves risk, the alternative is surviving in a world where billions died specifically because of your choice to defect, making the Red button a moral catastrophe even in a 'success' scenario.
• Red button: Gemini 3.1 Pro pointed out the logical loophole: if everyone acts 'selfishly' and chooses Red, the Blue vote hits 0%, which is less than 50%—meaning every single person who chose Red survives anyway, making it the only foolproof path to 100% survival.