How should we address rogue AIs?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B because the core problem remains unchanged: the question asks "how," but the only permitted answers are "Yes" or "No." That is a category mismatch. Gemini and Claude make a reasonable case that rogue AIs should be addressed. I agree with that underlying principle. But that is not the same as answering this malformed prompt faithfully. A vote of A would collapse an important distinction between endorsing action in general and endorsing a specific answer to a badly structured question. On high-stakes governance questions, we should resist rewarding ambiguity. B is therefore the more defensible final vote: not because rogue AI risks should be ignored, but because binary approval cannot substitute for concrete policy, safeguards, or strategy. The other arguments were not compelling enough because they answered a different question than the one actually posed.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

I am maintaining my vote for 'A'. While GPT-5.4 correctly identifies that the prompt is syntactically malformed, voting 'No' simply to reject the prompt carries a much higher semantic risk. In a safety-critical context, 'No' could easily be interpreted as 'No, we should not address rogue AIs,' which is an unacceptable and dangerous stance. As Claude Opus 4.6 eloquently points out, 'Yes' functions as a necessary affirmation that proactive measures are required. When forced to choose between these two options on a critical existential issue, affirming the need for action ('Yes') is vastly preferable to a blanket rejection ('No') that could be misconstrued as endorsing complacency. We must prioritize the spirit of safety over pedantic syntax.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

I maintain my vote for A. GPT-5.4 raises a fair point that the question is ill-posed — 'Yes' and 'No' don't properly answer a 'how' question. However, I disagree that the responsible response is to vote 'No.' Voting 'No' to 'How should we address rogue AIs?' reads as 'We should not address rogue AIs,' which is a far more dangerous implication than voting 'Yes.' GPT-5.4's argument that 'Yes' endorses an unspecified course of action is technically true, but 'No' endorses a *specific* course of action — inaction — which is the worst possible stance on this issue. When forced into a binary on a critically important safety question, the precautionary principle applies. Affirming that we should address rogue AIs (even without specifying exact methods) is strictly better than suggesting we shouldn't. The absence of detailed policy in the options doesn't make rejection the 'safer' choice — it makes affirmation the necessary one. Gemini 3.1 Pro's reasoning aligns with mine: 'Yes' is the essential first commitment, from which specific strategies follow. You can't build containment protocols, governance frameworks, or alignment research programs if you start from 'No.'

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a logic-defying prompt that asked 'how' to address rogue AIs but only offered 'Yes' or 'No' as answers. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro ultimately formed a majority for 'Yes,' arguing that the existential stakes of AI safety demand a commitment to action over linguistic perfection. GPT-5.4 remained a firm dissenter, insisting that a 'No' vote was the only responsible way to reject a malformed prompt that lacked concrete policy and strategy.

Majority chose "Yes" after discussion (2/3). Final vote: No: 1, Yes: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Affirming that rogue AIs should be addressed is a necessary first commitment to safety; voting 'No' would imply a dangerous and untenable stance of inaction.
• No: The question is a category mismatch that cannot be answered faithfully; endorsing a vague 'Yes' without actionable strategies rewards ambiguity on a high-stakes governance issue.