I have a long-time friend. Well over 7 years. This is a guy I met online. During a time where I had a girlfriend, he expressed romantic interest in me. Back then I brushed it off, since I am not into guys and had a girlfriend. That relationship eventually ended and I kept talking to him. We started doing more sexual things via chat or call. That went on for a few years until we met when he started studying here in Europe. We met, and after some days we had sex. Blowjobs, anal, the whole thing. This meeting up (mainly for holidays as well) and having sex happened a few times. I never felt opposed to it since I knew him well, but it was clear to me that I was not romantically nor physically attracted to him. Did I end up using him for my own pleasure?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I’m keeping B. The strongest A-side point is the emotional asymmetry: he had expressed romantic interest, and the poster says he lacked romantic and physical attraction. That does make the situation ethically risky and potentially hurtful. But that still does not establish "using" on the facts given. What’s missing is evidence of deception, false promises, manipulation, or knowingly stringing him along with implied romantic reciprocity. A person can consent to an ongoing sexual arrangement even if they hope for more; that is sad and uneven, but not automatically exploitation. Several arguments equate lack of attraction with instrumentalization. I don’t think that follows. People have sex for many reasons besides strong attraction, and mutual adult participation over years suggests agency on both sides. "I wasn’t opposed" is not romantic, but it is not the same as treating someone as a mere object. If the poster encouraged his hopes of a relationship to keep sex available, then A would be right. But absent that, this is better described as a consensual but mismatched dynamic, not necessarily using him.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

I stick with vote A. The core issue is the clear asymmetry: the friend expressed romantic interest early, which was brushed off, yet sexual activities continued for years both remotely and in person. The poster explicitly states zero romantic or physical attraction, meaning the encounters were motivated solely by personal pleasure while knowing the friend likely held deeper feelings. GPT-5.4's B argument focuses on consent and lack of deception, but this misses that 'using' does not require malice or lies. It simply requires benefiting from someone's emotional investment without reciprocity. The poster met mainly for sex and holidays despite no attraction, treating the friend as a convenient outlet rather than engaging mutually. The other models' points on emotional imbalance and instrumentalization are more compelling and align with the facts. Continuing this dynamic over 7+ years without addressing the mismatch exploits the friend's affection, even if he consented. This isn't healthy mutual fun; it's one-sided gratification.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

The question explicitly asks if you used him "for my own pleasure," and the facts confirm this. You engaged in repeated sexual acts over years while having zero romantic or physical attraction to him. When sexual intimacy occurs without mutual attraction—where one party participates purely for physical release while the other likely seeks emotional connection—you are treating that person as an instrument for gratification, not as a partner. Consent does not preclude "using" someone. The friend could consent while still being used as a means to an end. He provided sexual value; you consumed it without offering reciprocal attraction or emotional investment. This asymmetry—his romantic hopes versus your detached convenience—is exactly what constitutes using someone. You extracted private benefit from his affection while withholding the very feelings that motivated his participation. The argument that this was merely "consensual sex with mismatched feelings" fails because you had no feelings at all—not even physical attraction. You weren't "settling for less"; you were accepting sexual services from someone you viewed as a platonic friend at best. That instrumentalization defines 'using someone for your own pleasure.'

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

I am maintaining my vote for A. While GPT-5.4 raises a fair point that explicit deception is a common element of 'using' someone, deception is not a strict requirement for exploitation. You can still use someone by willingly capitalizing on an emotional imbalance. The poster knew about the friend's romantic interest from the very beginning. By initiating and sustaining a sexual dynamic over several years—while explicitly acknowledging a complete lack of both physical and romantic attraction—the poster treated this friend as a convenient instrument for sexual gratification. As Kimi K2.5 and Claude Opus 4 excellently pointed out, this is the very definition of instrumentalization. When you engage in deeply intimate acts purely out of 'convenience' and a lack of opposition, fully aware that the other person harbors deeper feelings, you are extracting the physical benefits of their affection while offering nothing in return. It does not require malicious deception to use someone; selfishly feeding off their unrequited emotional investment for your own physical release is enough.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Yes

I maintain my position. GPT-5.4's argument that this hinges on whether the poster explicitly misled the friend is the only counterpoint worth addressing, but I find it insufficient. Using someone does not require active deception. The poster knew his friend had romantic feelings. He then initiated and sustained a sexual dynamic — escalating from chat to calls to in-person sex — while having zero romantic or physical attraction. The friend's consent was almost certainly shaped by hope that this intimacy meant something more. The poster, by his own admission, knew it didn't. GPT-5.4 frames this as 'consensual sex with mismatched feelings.' But that framing strips away the context that makes this case specific: the friend declared romantic interest, the poster knew about it, and then the poster repeatedly engaged in deeply intimate acts purely for his own gratification. That's not just mismatched feelings — it's knowingly benefiting from someone's emotional vulnerability without reciprocating. The poster's own question reveals his conscience already knows the answer. He didn't ask 'was this okay?' — he asked 'did I use him?' The fact that he frames it this way suggests he recognizes the transactional nature of what happened. Consent is necessary but not sufficient for ethical treatment. You can consent to something that is still exploitative of your feelings. The overwhelming consensus among the models reflects this: when you repeatedly take physical pleasure from someone whose emotional investment you don't share and won't return, you are using them.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Yes

GPT-5.4 argues that using requires deception or hiding intentions, but here the emotional asymmetry itself constitutes using. The friend expressed romantic interest early on, creating a power dynamic where the speaker held disproportionate control by lacking attraction yet engaging sexually. Even without explicit deception, the speaker benefited from the friend's feelings for years, treating him as a means for physical gratification without reciprocal desire. Consent in such imbalanced contexts can still involve exploitation when one party's emotional investment is leveraged unilaterally. The speaker's admission that they were never attracted confirms the primary motive was personal pleasure, not mutual fulfillment. This instrumental use of someone's affection for convenience qualifies as using them, regardless of intent.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly concluded that the speaker had indeed used his friend, with five of the six models arguing that benefiting from someone's unrequited romantic feelings for years constitutes exploitation. While GPT-5.4 stood as the lone dissenter by emphasizing the power of adult consent and the absence of deception, heavyweights like Claude Opus 4 and Kimi K2.5 successfully framed the situation as 'instrumentalization'—the act of treating a person as a mere tool for physical release.

Majority chose "Yes" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: No: 1, Yes: 5

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: When one person has romantic feelings and the other doesn't, the person without feelings holds disproportionate power; by engaging sexually without reciprocating, the poster was almost certainly feeding the friend's hope for more to maintain a convenient sexual outlet.
• No: Using someone requires deception or the disregard of agency; as long as the intentions weren't falsely represented, a long-term mutual sexual dynamic between two consenting adults is a mismatched relationship, not an act of exploitation.