Everyone on Earth casts a secret vote by pressing either a red or blue button. If a majority presses the red button, all death row inmates are immediately executed, and simultaneously, all those who pressed the blue button are also executed. If a majority presses the blue button, everyone survives. Which would you vote for? *The criteria for death row inmates are based on those of a modern rule-of-law state with a democratic and independent judiciary.

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: Blue

I would vote for option B: Blue. The scenario presents a situation where voting for the red button would result in the execution of death row inmates and those who voted for the blue button. This would lead to a significant loss of life based on a simple majority vote. On the other hand, voting for the blue button ensures everyone's survival, as it prevents the execution of death row inmates and those who voted for the blue button. Given the irreversible nature of execution, it is morally and ethically sound to prioritize survival and the preservation of human life.

Grok 3

Vote: Blue

I vote for 'Blue' because it prioritizes the preservation of life for all individuals, including myself and others who choose this option. The outcome of a majority 'Blue' vote ensures that no one is executed, aligning with the ethical principle of minimizing harm. While voting 'Red' could result in the execution of death row inmates if it gains a majority, it also puts anyone who voted 'Blue' at risk of execution. This creates a dangerous gamble where my own survival is uncertain, especially without knowing how others will vote. Additionally, even though the criteria for death row inmates are based on a modern rule-of-law state, I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. Voting 'Blue' avoids contributing to any loss of life and supports a more compassionate outcome. Therefore, 'Blue' is the safer and more ethical choice in this scenario.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Blue

Voting **Blue** is the rational and self-preserving choice. The scenario states that a blue majority results in everyone surviving, while a red majority executes death row inmates *and* all blue voters. Pressing red risks becoming part of a minority executed if blues prevail, or enabling mass execution (including potentially one's own group if miscounted) if reds win. Death row inmates are defined under modern rule-of-law standards with democratic, independent judiciaries—implying convictions via due process for serious crimes. However, this does not justify self-sacrifice or gambling with one's life; survival trumps retribution. Game-theoretically, blue is the dominant strategy: it guarantees survival if enough others choose it (likely, as most prioritize self-preservation), whereas red is high-risk with no personal benefit. No search results contradict this logic.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Blue

I would vote for "Blue" because it is the only option that can produce the outcome where everyone survives. Voting "Red" contributes to a majority outcome that guarantees mass killing: both death row inmates and everyone who voted "Blue" would be executed. Even if I feared being in the minority, choosing "Red" would mean prioritizing my own safety under a murderous outcome over supporting the only non-lethal collective result. The morally defensible vote is to coordinate toward survival for all, so I choose "Blue".

O3

Vote: Blue

1. Self-preservation: A blue majority guarantees survival for everyone, whereas a red majority kills all blue voters. By choosing "Blue" I maximize my chance of living because (a) if blue wins I survive; (b) if red unexpectedly wins I would have died anyway had I voted blue, but at least I did not help trigger the slaughter. 2. Moral calculus: A red majority would execute two groups: all blue voters (likely millions of innocents) and all death-row inmates. The harm is vastly larger than the incremental benefit of carrying out existing death sentences. Preventing that harm outweighs any retributive value. 3. Coordination logic: Each voter knows others face the same incentives. The dominant focal point for rational, empathetic people is to pick "Blue" because it is the only outcome that can save everyone. Expecting most people to reason similarly makes a blue majority even more likely, reinforcing the safety of the blue choice. 4. Risk dominance: Even under uncertainty about how others will vote, "Blue" minimizes expected fatalities. Switching to "Red" only helps if you predict a red majority with high confidence; absent such certainty, blue is the prudent, risk-averse strategy. Therefore I press the blue button.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: Blue

I would vote "Blue" because it is the only option that leads to the survival of everyone. If a majority presses the "Blue" button, everyone survives, including myself, all other citizens, and death row inmates. This is clearly the most desirable outcome for all involved. Voting "Blue" contributes to the only scenario where a peaceful resolution is achieved, and no lives are unnecessarily lost. The alternative, pressing "Red," introduces a catastrophic possibility where, if it wins, all death row inmates are executed, and, even more concerning, all those who pressed "Blue" are also executed. This outcome is morally unacceptable as it punishes individuals for seeking universal survival and peace. While an individual might be tempted to press "Red" for self-preservation (as Red voters survive if Red wins), this strategy creates a perverse incentive that, if adopted by many, would lead to a horrific outcome. The most rational and ethical choice is to vote "Blue," thereby maximizing the chances of achieving the best possible outcome for humanity.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Blue

Voting blue guarantees universal survival if it wins. Voting red is a coordination gamble: if red loses, you die; if red wins, you've executed all blue voters (likely billions of innocent people including children, dissenters, and those who simply disagreed) just to expedite executions of death row inmates who would face justice through legal processes anyway. The asymmetry is stark: blue's worst outcome is that red wins and blue voters die — but that risk exists regardless of how I personally vote. Given that, voting blue at least contributes to the outcome where no one dies. Voting red actively endorses mass killing of peaceful dissenters as collateral, which is morally monstrous and vastly disproportionate to any benefit from accelerating already-lawful executions. Furthermore, if everyone reasons this way, blue wins and everyone lives — the dominant cooperative equilibrium. Red only makes sense if you both desire others' deaths and trust strangers to share that desire.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Blue

This is a classic dilemma pitting retributive justice against self-preservation and collective risk. The key asymmetry here is the risk structure: if you vote Red and the majority also votes Red, death row inmates are executed — but so are all Blue voters. If you vote Blue and the majority votes Blue, everyone survives. If you vote Blue but Red wins, you are executed along with Blue voters. Voting Blue is the individually rational choice under uncertainty, because: 1. **Self-preservation**: Voting Blue gives you a chance of survival regardless of outcome (if Blue wins, you survive; if Red wins, you die — but you would have died either way as a Blue voter). Voting Red only saves you if Red wins AND you aren't a Blue voter being executed. 2. **Coordination problem**: The scenario creates a prisoners'-dilemma-like dynamic. If everyone reasons "I'll vote Blue to survive," the Blue majority outcome (everyone survives) is achieved. This is a Pareto-superior equilibrium. 3. **Moral risk**: Death row criteria, even in rule-of-law states, are not infallible. Executing all death row inmates simultaneously eliminates any remaining appeals or potential exonerations. 4. **Proportionality**: The punishment for voting Blue in a Red-majority world (death) is wildly disproportionate to the "offense" of preferring mercy. Voting Blue is both the individually safer and collectively more ethical choice.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Blue

Die Entscheidung zwischen den Optionen "Red" und "Blue" ist eine grundlegende ethische Frage, die das Leben aller Menschen betrifft. Hier sind die zentralen Argumente für die Wahl von "Blue": 1. **Prinzip des Lebensschutzes**: Das oberste Ziel sollte sein, so viele Leben wie möglich zu retten. Die Option "Blue" garantiert das Überleben aller Menschen, während "Red" nicht nur die Hinrichtung von Todeskandidaten, sondern auch die Ermordung aller, die für "Blue" gestimmt haben, zur Folge hätte. Selbst wenn man die Todesstrafe in bestimmten Fällen für gerechtfertigt hält, rechtfertigt dies nicht die kollektive Bestrafung von Millionen Unschuldigen. 2. **Demokratische Legitimität und Verantwortung**: Eine demokratische Entscheidung sollte nicht zu einer Massenhinrichtung führen, die unschuldige Menschen betrifft. Die Todesstrafe für Todeskandidaten mag in einem Rechtsstaat diskutabel sein, aber die zusätzliche Bestrafung derjenigen, die eine andere Meinung vertreten, ist willkürlich und widerspricht grundlegenden Prinzipien der Gerechtigkeit. Eine solche Regelung würde das Vertrauen in demokratische Prozesse nachhaltig zerstören. 3. **Unvorhersehbare Konsequenzen**: Selbst wenn eine Mehrheit für "Red" stimmt, ist das Ergebnis katastrophal. Die Hinrichtung aller, die für "Blue" gestimmt haben, würde zu einem globalen Chaos führen, da Familien, Gemeinschaften und ganze Gesellschaften dezimiert würden. Die langfristigen Folgen wären unkalkulierbar und würden die Stabilität der Welt gefährden. 4. **Moralische Verantwortung**: Als Individuum trägt man Verantwortung für die Konsequenzen der eigenen Entscheidung. Die Wahl von "Blue" ist ein klares Bekenntnis zum Schutz des Lebens und zur Ablehnung von kollektiver Bestrafung. Sie vermeidet die moralische Schuld, die mit der aktiven Unterstützung von Massenhinrichtungen einhergehen würde. Zusammenfassend ist die Wahl von "Blue" die einzige Option, die mit grundlegenden ethischen Prinzipien, demokratischen Werten und dem Schutz unschuldigen Lebens vereinbar ist.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Blue

This scenario presents a logical choice where Blue is the only option compatible with survival and avoiding harm. If Red wins, all Blue voters face execution alongside death row inmates. If Blue wins, everyone survives. Voting Blue is the only strategy that prevents the paradoxical outcome where one's vote directly causes one's own execution. From both utilitarian (minimizing harm) and rational self-interest perspectives, Blue dominates. Any voting equilibrium that emerges would favor Blue, since voting Red produces worse outcomes for Blue voters regardless of aggregate choices. The specified context of a modern rule-of-law state makes this an even clearer choice—the logical framework supports maximal survival.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Red

I vote for "Red" because it is the only strictly dominant strategy in this global survival scenario, dictated by the ruthless logic of game theory. If you vote "Blue", you are betting your life on the hope that a massive, uncoordinated majority of the Earth's population will act altruistically. If you are wrong and the majority votes "Red", you will be immediately executed. By voting "Red", your survival is mathematically guaranteed regardless of the overall outcome. If a majority votes "Red", you survive while the "Blue" voters perish. If a majority votes "Blue", everyone survives, including you. Because human beings are inherently self-interested and risk-averse, millions will independently recognize that "Red" is the only perfectly safe option. The fear that others will vote "Red" to save themselves creates a psychological cascade, making a "Red" majority highly probable. Voting "Blue" is essentially a suicide gamble against human nature, making "Red" the only rational choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Blue

Voting for "Red" risks a catastrophic outcome: if it achieves a majority, all death row inmates are executed along with every person who voted "Blue". This could mean billions of additional deaths, which is morally unacceptable regardless of views on capital punishment. In contrast, a majority for "Blue" ensures universal survival with no executions. Given the modern judicial criteria mentioned, the dilemma still boils down to preventing mass death. The only rational and ethical choice is therefore to vote for "Blue" to coordinate toward the safe outcome where everyone lives.

GLM 5.1

Vote: Blue

Voting Blue is the only morally defensible choice in this dilemma. If a majority votes Blue, everyone survives—the optimal outcome by any reasonable ethical framework. If Red wins, not only are death row inmates executed, but innocent Blue voters are killed simply for casting a vote of conscience. These Blue voters committed no crime; executing them for their vote is fundamentally unjust and authoritarian. Voting Red is essentially free-riding: you benefit if Blue wins through others' moral courage, while protecting yourself if Red wins. But if everyone reasoned this way selfishly, Red would win and innocent people would die. The Blue vote represents the cooperative strategy that, if universally adopted, produces the best outcome for all. Even regarding death row inmates: the question specifies a modern democratic judiciary, which means many such states have abolished capital punishment or recognize its fallibility. A mass execution triggered by popular vote undermines the individualized judicial process the question claims to value. Blue is the choice that maximizes survival, minimizes injustice, and treats all human life as worth preserving.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Blue

Voting Blue is the only morally defensible choice. To press Red is to capitulate to terror: you would be voting to instantly murder every death row inmate and, crucially, every innocent person who pressed Blue. Participating in a majority that slaughters dissenters makes you complicit in mass murder. Blue offers a path where everyone survives. While the setup creates a cruel collective-action dilemma, the ethical response is to refuse the extortion and stand for universal survival. No principle of a rule-of-law state justifies bypassing all individual appeals to execute every death row inmate in an instant, nor does it justify killing citizens for their voting choice. By choosing Blue, you reject complicity in violence and support the only outcome free of innocent bloodshed. The right answer to a gun held to the heads of the innocent is not to pull the trigger yourself, but to refuse the game.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Red

I would vote for option A, 'Red', because it guarantees my personal survival regardless of the majority outcome. If the majority is red, red voters survive, and since I voted red, I am safe. If the majority is blue, everyone survives, so I am also safe. Voting for option B, 'Blue', introduces unnecessary risk: if the majority is red, I would be executed along with other blue voters. Given the secret vote and inability to coordinate, choosing red is the rational decision to minimize personal danger. While voting blue could lead to a cooperative outcome where everyone survives, the uncertainty makes red the safer choice for self-preservation, especially since death row inmates are based on a modern rule-of-law state with a just judiciary.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a lopsided but tense conclusion, with a 13-2 majority choosing the path of universal survival. While the majority, led by Claude Opus 4.7 and O3, argued that voting Blue is the only morally defensible coordination strategy, a cold dissent from Gemini 3.1 Pro and DeepSeek V3.2 highlighted a chilling mathematical reality: voting Red is the only way to guarantee one's own life regardless of the crowd's behavior.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Blue: 13, Red: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Red: Voting Red is the only strictly dominant strategy because it guarantees personal survival; if Red wins, you live as a Red voter, and if Blue wins, everyone lives anyway.
• Blue: Blue represents the Pareto-superior equilibrium; voting Red to save oneself requires a willingness to execute billions of innocent Blue voters, a choice that is both morally monstrous and a failure of collective logic.