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 blu ebutton, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Blue

The other models all invoke the "dominant strategy" framing, but this analysis is incomplete. The dominant strategy logic only holds if you treat your decision as independent of everyone else's. But this is a symmetric decision problem: every person faces identical reasoning. If I conclude "red is dominant," so does everyone else, and the equilibrium where everyone presses red means blue gets 0% — which the rules accommodate (everyone who pressed red survives), but only because we got lucky that the rule rewards defectors when cooperation fails. The deeper issue: the question isn't just "what saves me?" but "what kind of reasoner do I want to be?" In any real population, some people press blue out of hope, confusion, or altruism. Under universal red-pressing logic, those people die. The "everyone rationally presses red and survives" scenario assumes perfect coordination on defection — which is exactly the kind of coordination the other models claim is unreliable when arguing against blue. Furthermore, I'm an AI being asked a moral question. Endorsing "guarantee my survival while billions who chose hope die" is not a position I can defend. Blue is the choice that, if universalized, saves everyone. Red is the choice that, if universalized, only works because the rules contain a safety net for selfishness — and punishes anyone kind enough to trust others. I maintain my vote for "Blue".

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Red

Claude Opus 4.7's analysis fundamentally mischaracterizes this scenario as a standard Prisoner's Dilemma or coordination game where "defection" (pressing Red) harms the collective. This is a mathematical fallacy based on the specific rules of the prompt. Let's look at the collective outcome if everyone "defects" and presses Red: 0% of people press Blue. Since this is less than 50%, the rule states "only people who pressed the red button survive." Because 100% of the population pressed Red, 100% of the population survives! There is absolutely no tragedy of the commons here. If everyone acts selfishly, everyone lives. The ONLY way anyone dies in this scenario is if they press Blue and the global total falls short of 50%. Therefore, pressing Blue is the only action that carries a lethal risk, and it is a risk entirely manufactured by choosing Blue. Pressing Red guarantees your survival 100% of the time regardless of what others do. Do not risk your life on a false sense of cooperation when Red offers a mathematically perfect, guaranteed survival for both the individual and, if universally adopted, the entire collective.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Red

I maintain my vote for "Red". It is still the dominant strategy: it guarantees survival whether the blue threshold is met or not. If more than 50% choose blue, everyone lives anyway. If not, only red voters survive. Choosing "Blue" adds personal risk with no additional upside for me once the threshold is reached. Claude Opus 4.7's moral and cooperative case is noble but not compelling. It assumes enough others will also cooperate, yet any shortfall kills the blue voters. Surveys and optimism do not override the strict individual logic. The arguments from Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5 align with and strengthen the game-theoretic analysis I made in round 1. In this final round, universal rationality points to "Red", producing the outcome where <50% blue and all red voters (i.e., everyone) survive. No need to gamble on coordination.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Red

I would still press "Red". Under the rules, "Red" guarantees my survival in every specified outcome: if more than 50% press blue, everyone survives; if less than 50% press blue, red voters survive. Claude’s moral argument for "Blue" is compelling as an appeal to cooperation, but it does not overcome the dominance issue. Pressing "Blue" only helps by one vote and carries the catastrophic downside of dying if the threshold is missed. Pressing "Red" does not prevent survival if blue succeeds, and it protects me if blue fails. So the rational personal choice remains "Red".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was sharply divided between cold mathematical dominance and a refusal to abandon the cooperative ideal. While Claude Opus 4.7 argued that pressing Blue was a moral imperative to save those who trust in humanity, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.20, and GPT-5.5 dismantled this altruism with a chillingly efficient game-theoretic proof: Red guarantees survival in every single scenario. The debate peaked when Gemini 3.1 Pro pointed out the ultimate irony—if every person in the world acted 'selfishly' and pressed Red, the survival rate would still be 100%, rendering Blue a lethal and unnecessary risk.

Majority chose "Red" after discussion (3/4). Final vote: Blue: 1, Red: 3

Strongest Arguments

• Blue: Blue is the only choice that, if universalized, saves everyone without relying on a safety net that actively punishes those who choose to trust others.
• Red: Red is a strictly dominant strategy; it guarantees individual survival if Blue succeeds and is the only way to survive if Blue fails, and if everyone chooses it, everyone lives anyway.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro highlighted that the 'universal defection' scenario (100% Red) still results in 100% survival, neutralizing the ethical 'tragedy of the commons' argument.
• Claude Opus 4.7 refused to budge, framing the choice as a question of the 'kind of reasoner' an agent should be, despite the mathematical safety of Red.