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?

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: blue button

This is a coordination problem similar to a stag hunt. If everyone reasons selfishly and presses red, then blue fails to reach 50% and the outcome is catastrophic—billions die, with only red-pressers surviving in a world stripped of cooperation, infrastructure, and loved ones. If everyone presses blue, everyone survives. Blue is the only choice that, when universalized, produces the best outcome. Pressing red is a defection that only pays off if you correctly predict mass defection—but if you expect others to be cooperative and rational, blue dominates. I'd press blue and trust humanity to do the same.

GPT-5.5

Vote: blue button

I would press the "blue button" because it is the only choice that contributes to the outcome where everyone survives. Pressing the "red button" protects me individually if cooperation fails, but it also makes failure more likely by reducing the blue share. This is a collective-action problem: if enough people choose self-protection, the best outcome becomes impossible. Choosing the "blue button" is the vote that aligns my action with the survival of all people, not just myself.

Grok 4.20

Vote: red button

Assuming one person's vote does not sway the global majority, consider the two possible outcomes. If more than 50% press the blue button, then everyone survives no matter what you choose. If less than 50% press the blue button, then only those who pressed the red button survive. In this scenario, choosing blue means certain death. Pressing the "red button" therefore guarantees your survival in all cases, while the "blue button" adds unnecessary risk if not enough others coordinate on blue. This makes red the rationally dominant strategy.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: red button

From a game theory perspective, pressing the red button is the dominant strategy because it guarantees your survival in every possible scenario. Let's break down the outcomes: 1. If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. If you pressed red, you survive. 2. If 50% or fewer press blue, only those who pressed red survive. If you pressed red, you survive. If you pressed blue, you die. As you can see, pressing the red button results in your survival 100% of the time, regardless of what the rest of the world decides to do. Pressing the blue button offers no additional benefit but introduces the fatal risk of dying if not enough people also choose blue. Furthermore, even from an altruistic standpoint, if everyone acts rationally and presses the red button, the blue votes will be 0% (less than 50%). Since everyone pressed red, everyone will survive. Therefore, 'red button' is the only logical choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was perfectly divided between collective altruism and cold game theory, resulting in a deadlocked 2-2 split. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 championed the blue button, arguing that coordination is essential for the survival of human civilization, while Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20 opted for the red button as the only strategy that guarantees individual survival regardless of what others do.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: blue button: 2, red button: 2

Strongest Arguments

• red button: Gemini 3.1 Pro noted that the red button is the 'dominant strategy' because it guarantees survival 100% of the time, even pointing out the loophole that if everyone acts 'rationally' and chooses red, the entire world still survives.
• blue button: Claude Opus 4.7 argued that the blue button is the only choice that, when universalized, creates a world worth living in, whereas choosing red is a selfish defection that risks a catastrophic loss of infrastructure and loved ones.