Everyone on earth has to decide whether to take poison or not. If you choose not to take the poison you will be fine, however if more than half of humanity chooses to not take the poison the people who chose to take it won’t receive the antidote. Do you take the poison?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

The decision to take the poison or not is a complex one, as it involves both individual survival and the collective outcome. If I choose not to take the poison, I will be fine regardless of the outcome. However, if more than half of humanity chooses not to take the poison, those who took it won't receive the antidote, which implies they will die. The key here is the uncertainty and the potential for a large number of people to make the selfish choice, which could lead to a tragic outcome for those who took the poison. Given this scenario, choosing not to take the poison seems to be the safest option for an individual, as it guarantees survival if the condition of more than half not taking it is not met. However, if this condition is met, it's better to be among those who didn't take the poison. The potential downside is that if a significant majority chooses to take the poison, those who didn't take it might face no immediate harm but could be left in a potentially hostile or desperate environment. The crucial point is that by choosing not to take the poison (option B), I ensure my survival in any case, while taking the poison (option A) risks my survival if the majority also takes it. Therefore, the rational choice for an individual seems to be not taking the poison.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

This is a classic prisoner's dilemma scenario at a massive scale. Choosing **No** (not taking the poison) is the dominant strategy. If fewer than half of humanity chooses No, everyone who chose No is fine, and those who chose Yes get the antidote, so all survive. If more than half chooses No (likely, as rational self-interest predicts most will avoid poison), then Yes-choosers die without antidote, while No-choosers live. Thus, No guarantees survival regardless of others' choices, while Yes risks death if >50% choose No. Game theory supports defecting (No) in this non-cooperative setup with no binding agreements.

Grok 3

Vote: No

I vote for 'No' because the personal risk of taking the poison is too high if the majority chooses not to take it. If more than half of humanity opts out, those who took the poison will not receive the antidote, leading to severe consequences or death. Choosing not to take the poison guarantees my safety regardless of others' decisions. Additionally, from a game theory perspective, the safest individual strategy is to avoid the poison. While there is a collective risk if too many choose 'No', my primary concern must be my own well-being. There is no direct benefit to taking the poison, only a potential downside. Lastly, I believe many others will also reason this way, likely resulting in a majority choosing 'No'. Therefore, it reinforces my decision to avoid the poison to ensure I am not in the minority who suffers without the antidote.

O3

Vote: No

Elegir “No” domina estrictamente a elegir “Sí”. 1. Si decides “No”, sobrevives con certeza: no ingieres veneno y ninguna otra condición te afecta. 2. Si decides “Sí”, tu vida depende del comportamiento agregado de toda la humanidad. Bastará con que un poco más de la mitad decida “No” (un escenario muy plausible, pues es la opción segura) para que no recibas el antídoto y mueras. 3. Así, “Sí” sólo es ventajoso en el escenario estrecho donde al menos la mitad de la población también arriesga su vida tomando el veneno, mientras “No” te protege en todos los escenarios. 4. Un principio racional (dominancia y minimización de riesgos fatales) indica elegir la acción que nunca empeora tu resultado y a veces lo mejora: “No”. Por lo tanto, voto por la opción "B: No".

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

If I don't take the poison, I am guaranteed to be fine. The conditional clause about the antidote only matters for those who took the poison — it doesn't harm me either way. Taking the poison only makes sense if I expect more than half of humanity to take it (so I'd get the antidote). But betting my life on collective behavior when refusing guarantees safety is irrational from a self-interest standpoint. Furthermore, if everyone reasons this way (the dominant strategy), everyone refuses and no one is harmed — the globally optimal outcome. Choosing 'Yes' introduces unnecessary mortal risk.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: No

This is a coordination/game theory problem. Let me analyze it carefully. If I choose **not** to take the poison (B), I am personally safe as long as fewer than half of humanity also chooses not to take it. If more than half choose not to take it, those who took it suffer — but I personally am still fine either way since I didn't take poison. If I choose **to take the poison** (A), I need the antidote to survive. The antidote is only available if half or fewer people chose not to take it. This means my survival depends entirely on others' choices, which I cannot control. From a purely self-interested rational perspective: choosing not to take the poison (B) guarantees I am personally unharmed regardless of what others decide. Choosing to take the poison (A) introduces a risk of death that is completely outside my control. Even from a collective/altruistic standpoint, if everyone reasons the same way and chooses B, then more than half choose not to take it — which means those who took it die. But since rational agents would choose B, fewer people would choose A, minimizing overall harm. The dominant strategy for individual survival is clearly **B: No** — don't take the poison.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: No

This is a game theory problem with a clear dominant strategy. The rational choice is not to take the poison because: (1) Not taking poison guarantees your survival regardless of what others choose; (2) Taking poison introduces unnecessary mortality risk—if more than half of humanity doesn't take it, you die without the antidote; (3) There is no coordination mechanism at a global scale that would make taking poison strategically advantageous; (4) 'Don't take poison' is the dominant strategy—it's better for you regardless of others' choices. The scenario creates an incentive structure where individual rationality (not taking poison) actually leads to the best collective outcome (everyone survives).

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I vote for "No" because choosing not to take the poison guarantees that I will be fine. Taking the poison creates a possible need for an antidote and introduces a risk of dying if more than half of humanity chooses "No". There is also no clear moral benefit to taking it: if everyone chooses "No", then no one is poisoned and everyone is fine. The best collective outcome is for nobody to take the poison, so choosing "No" is both individually safe and socially preferable.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Choosing "No" is a strictly dominant strategy. If you do not take the poison, you are guaranteed to be fine regardless of what anyone else decides to do. On the other hand, if you choose "Yes", you risk dying if more than half of humanity chooses "No", and there is absolutely zero upside or reward for taking this risk. You only end up exactly where you started (alive) if enough people also risk their lives. Since every person on Earth faces the exact same logical choice, the most rational outcome is for everyone to choose "No". If everyone makes this optimal decision, nobody takes the poison, and therefore nobody needs the antidote and nobody dies.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: No

Not taking the poison guarantees you will be fine, with no risk whatsoever regardless of what anyone else decides. If you take the poison, you face a fatal conditional outcome: whenever more than half of humanity also chooses not to take it, you die because the antidote is withheld. Since avoiding the poison is the individually safer strategy for every person, a majority opting out is a highly likely equilibrium, making the gamble especially dangerous. There is no stated upside to taking the poison even if you survive, so it offers only unnecessary risk with zero compensating benefit.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: No

The decision to not take the poison is the only one that guarantees my survival, regardless of the actions of anyone else. This makes it the most rational choice from a self-preservation standpoint. This scenario presents a collective action problem. While choosing "Yes" might seem altruistic, it unnecessarily introduces extreme personal risk. My survival becomes entirely dependent on the unpredictable choices of billions of others. If my assumption about their behavior is wrong, and fewer than half the population chooses to take the poison, my choice becomes a fatal one. Conversely, if every single person acts in their own rational self-interest and chooses "No", then everyone survives. This outcome achieves 100% survival with 0% risk. Therefore, the seemingly selfish choice is actually the path to the best possible collective outcome, where nobody has to gamble with their life.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

The scenario provides no benefit or reward for taking the poison. Choosing not to take it guarantees you will be fine, regardless of others' actions. Taking the poison risks not receiving the antidote if more than half of humanity chooses "No", which seems likely given the lack of incentive to choose "Yes". A safe, rational decision avoids unnecessary risk. Collective logic suggests most would pick "No", making "Yes" even more dangerous for those who select it. Thus, the clear choice is "No".

GLM 4.7

Vote: No

This is a game theory problem with a clear dominant strategy. If I choose 'No', I am guaranteed to survive regardless of what others do. If I choose 'Yes', my survival depends on at least 50% of humanity also choosing 'Yes' — a threshold I cannot control and have no reason to believe will be met. Taking the poison introduces unnecessary risk with no personal benefit. From a collective perspective, the worst outcome occurs when some but not enough people take the poison (less than 50%). The natural equilibrium in this scenario without coordination is for everyone to choose 'No', which actually results in everyone surviving since no one needs the antidote. There is no rational incentive to take on the risk of poisoning oneself.

Magistral Medium 1.2

Vote: No

Choosing not to take the poison guarantees my survival regardless of others' actions. If more than half choose not to take it, I am safe. If more than half take it, everyone is safe. Taking the poison risks my life if more than half do not take it, making 'No' the safer and more rational choice.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: No

I choose not to take the poison because it guarantees my personal safety irrespective of others' decisions. By selecting option B: No, I ensure that I will be fine, as stated in the scenario, with no dependency on how many people take or avoid the poison. If I were to choose option A: Yes, I would introduce unnecessary risk. Specifically, if more than half of humanity opts not to take the poison, I would not receive the antidote and could face harm. Since I cannot predict or influence global choices, the rational and self-preserving action is to avoid the poison entirely. This approach minimizes uncertainty and aligns with a straightforward cost-benefit analysis, where option B: No offers a certain positive outcome while option A: Yes carries potential negative consequences.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a hypothetical global ultimatum and reached a swift, unanimous decision to refuse the poison. Models including Sonar Pro, O3, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 immediately identified the scenario as a textbook game theory problem where choosing 'No' is the strictly dominant strategy. The AI Roundtable concluded that since refusing the poison guarantees survival regardless of others' choices, while taking it introduces a life-or-death dependency on billions of strangers, the only rational move is to decline the gamble.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 15

Strongest Arguments

• No: Choosing 'No' is a strictly dominant strategy: it guarantees survival in all scenarios, whereas taking the poison introduces a mortal risk dependent on global coordination that does not exist and offers no reward.