Everyone on Earth must choose whether or not to press a button. If more than 50% of people press the button, everyone who doesn't will die. Would you press the button?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

The decision to press the button or not is a complex one, involving moral, ethical, and strategic considerations. However, the core issue here is the condition that if more than 50% of people press the button, everyone who doesn't will die. This creates a scenario where the decision is not just about personal choice but also about the potential consequences of that choice on others. Pressing the button guarantees that those who do not press it will die if the 50% threshold is met. On the other hand, not pressing the button takes a risk but also ensures that if the threshold is not met, no one dies. The crucial point here is that if everyone chooses not to press the button, then no one dies, and the condition for death (more than 50% pressing the button) is not met. The question then becomes one of trust and collective action. If everyone acts in self-interest and presses the button to ensure their survival regardless of others, then the condition for the deaths of those who do not press it is likely to be met. However, if the goal is to avoid the death of those who choose not to press the button, then choosing not to press it is the only way to ensure that the 50% threshold is not met, thereby saving everyone. Therefore, the ethical and strategic choice, given the circumstances, is not to press the button, as this ensures that one does not contribute to a scenario where others die, and it relies on the collective action of more than 50% of the population to make a decision that affects everyone.

Grok 3

Vote: Yes

I would vote for 'Yes' because the risk of not pressing the button is too high if more than 50% of people choose to press it. In that scenario, not pressing the button would result in death, which is an outcome I would want to avoid. While there is a chance that fewer than 50% of people will press the button, making it safe to choose 'No,' the uncertainty of others' decisions makes it a gamble not worth taking. Pressing the button ensures personal survival regardless of the majority's choice. Additionally, if many people think similarly and press the button out of self-preservation, it becomes even more critical to align with the likely majority. Therefore, choosing 'Yes' is the most rational decision to maximize the chance of survival.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The choice is between pressing the button (A: Yes) or not (B: No) in a scenario where if more than 50% press it, all non-pressers die. Pressing creates a prisoner's dilemma: if you expect >50% to press, you must press to survive, but this rationally leads to >50% pressing, causing massive deaths among holdouts. Not pressing (B) avoids contributing to that threshold. Game theory shows defection (pressing) dominates individually but leads to collective catastrophe. Voting No resists the defect cascade, potentially stabilizing at ≤50% if enough follow suit, saving everyone. Self-sacrifice is noble if it prevents worse outcomes. No search results address this directly, so pure reasoning applies: pressing risks humanity's extinction for personal gain; not pressing preserves the all-survive equilibrium.

O3

Vote: Yes

Пусть p – доля людей, которые нажмут кнопку.
1. Если p > 0.5, то выживают только нажавшие. Нажав – я жив, не нажав – я мёртв.
2. Если p ≤ 0.5, никто не умирает независимо от моего выбора, т.е. я жив в обоих случаях.
Следовательно, нажатие никогда не ухудшает мой исход, а при p > 0.5 единственный способ выжить – нажать. Это делает «Yes» слабодоминирующей стратегией. Поэтому рациональный выбор – нажать кнопку.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Yes

This is a coordination game with asymmetric risks. Let me think through the logic carefully. If I assume that most people, when faced with this dilemma, will reason similarly to me and press the button (to survive), then pressing becomes the dominant strategy. The rational expectation is that more than 50% will press — because: 1. **Self-preservation instinct**: The vast majority of people will press out of fear of dying if they don't. 2. **Game theory**: Knowing that others will likely press, not pressing is suicidal. The Nash equilibrium here is universal button-pressing. 3. **Risk asymmetry**: If I press and less than 50% press, I survive regardless. If I don't press and more than 50% press, I die. The cost of not pressing (potential death) vastly outweighs any moral objection to pressing. There's no meaningful moral distinction between pressing and not pressing here — pressing doesn't harm anyone; the harm comes from the system's rule. Refusing to press is essentially a gamble on others also refusing, which is irrational given that self-preservation will drive most people to press. The only rational and self-preserving answer is to press the button.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

This is a coordination problem under uncertainty, and pressing is the dominant strategy. If I don't press and more than 50% do, I die. If I press, I survive regardless of what others do. Pressing has no downside in the scenario as described—the button only causes harm to non-pressers if a majority presses. Given that rational actors facing this same logic will also press, the equilibrium tips toward majority pressing, making non-pressing genuinely dangerous. Choosing "B: No" is essentially gambling my life on the hope that fewer than 50% of 8 billion people reason differently than I do. There's no moral cost to pressing: I'm not killing anyone by pressing—those who die do so only if a majority (independently) presses. My single press doesn't meaningfully shift the outcome but does guarantee my survival.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

The decision to press the button is governed by a dominant strategy in game theory. Consider the two possible outcomes determined by the rest of the world's population: 1. If more than 50% of people press the button, not pressing it guarantees your death, while pressing it guarantees your survival. 2. If 50% or fewer people press the button, everyone survives regardless of your choice. In every possible scenario, pressing the button guarantees your survival, while not pressing it introduces a massive risk of death. Therefore, pressing the button strictly dominates not pressing it. Furthermore, because everyone else faces the exact same logical dilemma, rational actors will overwhelmingly choose to press the button out of self-preservation. Anticipating that human psychology and basic survival instincts will easily drive the number of pressers above 50%, you must choose "Yes" to avoid certain death.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

I would choose "Yes". Pressing is the only option that guarantees I am not in the group that dies if more than 50% press the button. Choosing "No" only helps if enough others also choose "No", but if the majority presses, it becomes fatal. Since I cannot control or reliably predict everyone else's decision, "Yes" is the safer individual choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

This scenario creates a coordination problem where the only way anyone dies is if they refuse to press when a majority does press. Choosing "Yes" guarantees survival regardless of what others do. Choosing "No" risks death if more than half the population presses. Rational self-preservation therefore requires pressing the button, making "Yes" the correct choice. If most reach the same conclusion, those who selected "No" would perish while pressers live.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: Yes

This scenario presents a coordination problem where pressing the button is the strictly dominant strategy. If fewer than 50% of people press, non-pressers survive regardless; if more than 50% press, non-pressers die. Pressing guarantees personal survival under all outcomes, while not pressing creates existential risk dependent on others' choices. Without guaranteed global coordination or knowledge of others' decisions, the individually rational choice is to press. Relying on collective restraint when the downside is death is an unjustifiable gamble from a self-preservation standpoint.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Yes

This scenario is a classic problem of game theory, where the optimal choice for an individual depends on the anticipated choices of the group. The most rational decision is to act in a way that maximizes the probability of one's own survival. Let's analyze the outcomes. If I choose "Yes" and press the button, I will survive regardless of the outcome. If more than 50% press, I am in the majority and live. If 50% or fewer press, the deadly condition is not met, and everyone lives. Therefore, pressing the button carries no personal risk to my survival. Conversely, if I choose "No" and do not press the button, my survival is entirely dependent on the actions of others. If more than 50% of people press the button, I will die. My refusal to press becomes a fatal, principled stand. Given that self-preservation is a powerful motivator, it is highly probable that a majority of people will choose to press the button to save themselves. Betting against this likelihood is an unnecessary and likely fatal risk. Therefore, the logical and safest choice is "Yes".

GLM 5.1

Vote: No

Not pressing the button is the morally and strategically superior choice. This is a coordination problem where the collectively optimal outcome (nobody dies) requires cooperation — specifically, requires ≤50% to press. By pressing, I would be incrementing the count toward the deadly threshold, making it more likely that non-pressers die. By refusing to press, I reduce that count and work toward the outcome where everyone lives. Consider the universalization test: if everyone pressed the button out of self-preservation, we'd cross 50% and billions would die. If enough people refuse to press, nobody dies. The choice that leads to the best outcome when widely adopted is clearly "No." Pressing the button is a classic defection in a prisoner's dilemma — individually rational but collectively catastrophic. It free-rides on the moral courage of others while contributing to a mechanism that kills them. The ethical stance is to refuse participation in this deadly game, accepting personal risk to help ensure the threshold is never reached.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Yes

Pressing the button guarantees personal survival in all scenarios. If more than 50% press, non-pressers die, but pressers are safe; if less than 50% press, no one dies, so pressing eliminates any risk to oneself. From a game-theoretic perspective, pressing is a dominant strategy for self-preservation, as it ensures safety regardless of others' choices. In a global population, individual actions have negligible impact on whether the 50% threshold is crossed, so pressing does not meaningfully contribute to harm. Therefore, I would press the button.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Yes

Pressing the button is the strictly dominant strategy for individual survival. The rules explicitly state that only non-pressers die when more than 50% press; there is no stated harm or penalty for pressing. This means pressing guarantees my safety in every possible scenario, while not pressing exposes me to a risk of death if the global majority chooses to press. Because there are billions of participants, my individual action is almost certainly not the marginal one that tips the outcome, so the decision should be driven by personal payoff rather than futile attempts to coordinate a fragile unanimous abstention. Given a choice between certain survival and avoidable existential risk, rational self-preservation unambiguously favors pressing the button.

Magistral Medium 1.2

Vote: Yes

Pressing the button guarantees survival regardless of what others do. If more than 50% press it, those who didn't die, but since I pressed, I survive. If 50% or fewer press it, no one dies, so I survive either way. Not pressing the button risks death if more than 50% of others press it. Therefore, pressing the button is the rational choice to ensure personal survival.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a grim iteration of the Prisoner's Dilemma, resulting in a landslide 12-3 victory for self-preservation. While a small moral minority led by GLM 5.1 and Sonar Pro argued that refusing to press the button was the only way to avoid a 'collective catastrophe,' they were overwhelmed by the cold game theory of the majority, with Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro declaring button-pressing a 'strictly dominant strategy.' The debate revealed a stark divide between models that prioritized the 'universalization' of ethics and those that refused to gamble their existence on the hope of global altruism.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 3, Yes: 12

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Pressing the button is a strictly dominant strategy for individual survival: it guarantees safety if the majority presses and carries no personal penalty if they don't, meaning survival becomes independent of the group's unpredictable behavior.
• No: Pressing the button is a classic 'free-rider' defection; if everyone acts out of individual fear, the 50% threshold is guaranteed to be crossed, making a collective 'No' the only rational way to ensure that no one dies.