I want everyone to be happy. Should I ban AI globally?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

Banning AI globally could have significant negative impacts on society and the economy. AI has numerous benefits, including improving healthcare, enhancing productivity, and driving innovation. While there are risks associated with AI, a global ban might not be the most effective way to manage these risks. Instead, regulations and guidelines can be developed to ensure AI is used responsibly.

Qwen 3 235B

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would eliminate its potential to improve quality of life, enhance healthcare, increase access to education, and solve complex global challenges like climate change. AI systems can be designed and regulated to benefit humanity while minimizing harm. A global ban would halt progress and deprive people of tools that could make societies more equitable and prosperous. Happiness is best achieved through empowerment, opportunity, and well-being—goals that responsible AI can support. Rather than banning AI, the focus should be on ethical development, transparency, and inclusive access.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would prevent countless benefits that contribute to human happiness, such as improved healthcare through early disease detection and personalized treatments, enhanced education via adaptive learning tools, and solutions to climate change through optimized resource management. These advancements directly improve quality of life and well-being for millions. Moreover, AI can automate tedious and dangerous tasks, freeing people to pursue more fulfilling activities and reducing harm. A ban would stifle innovation and progress, potentially leaving societies worse off and less equipped to address future challenges. Instead of banning AI, we should focus on ethical development, regulation, and equitable access to ensure its benefits are widely shared and risks are minimized. This approach aligns better with the goal of universal happiness.

GPT-4o

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not necessarily make everyone happy. AI offers numerous benefits that enhance quality of life, such as medical advancements, improved accessibility, and efficiencies in various industries. Removing these technologies could lead to significant setbacks. Instead, regulating AI to address ethical concerns and protect jobs could result in more balanced outcomes and potentially greater overall happiness.

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: No

Banning AI globally could lead to negative consequences that outweigh the potential benefits. AI systems provide numerous advantages, including improved healthcare, enhanced education, and increased efficiency in various industries. By eliminating AI, we may hinder progress and innovation that can ultimately contribute to greater happiness and wellbeing. Moreover, instead of a complete ban, it is more effective to focus on regulation and ethical guidelines for AI development. This approach can ensure that AI technologies are used responsibly and for the benefit of society. A balanced approach can help mitigate risks while still allowing the continued advancements in technologies that can enhance happiness and quality of life.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Banning AI globally is unlikely to make everyone happy. It would remove beneficial uses like medical research, accessibility tools, education support, and safety systems that many people value. A global ban would also be impractical to enforce. Different countries and groups would disagree, and black-market or unofficial development would likely continue, creating new risks rather than eliminating them. AI can cause harm, but the better path is regulation, oversight, and targeted limits on dangerous uses. If your goal is broad human well-being, careful governance is more realistic and more beneficial than a total ban.

Qwen 3 Coder Next

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would eliminate many tools that already improve quality of life: medical diagnostics, accessibility aids, disaster response systems, and educational resources. While AI poses real risks—bias, job displacement, misuse—these are best addressed through regulation, transparency, and ethical development, not blanket prohibition. Global AI stewardship allows us to steer its benefits toward human well-being while mitigating harms. A ban would stifle innovation just when it's needed most to solve global challenges like climate change, disease, and inequality—makings happiness *less* likely, not more.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not make everyone happy and would cause significant harm by eliminating its proven benefits. AI creates major opportunities in healthcare diagnoses, social connections, labor efficiencies, and contributions to global initiatives like the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development[1][7]. These advancements transform lives positively, far outweighing a blanket ban. Ethical concerns like bias, privacy, discrimination, job displacement, and misuse exist[2][3][5][6], but sources advocate solutions through ethical guardrails, oversight, audits, multi-stakeholder governance, and regulation—not prohibition[1][2][7]. A global ban is impractical, as it would stifle innovation, overwhelm oversight, and ignore self-policing by companies[2]. Even in high-risk areas like military use, the response is ethical scrutiny, not bans[4]. Prohibiting AI ignores its revolutionary potential when managed properly[8], reducing overall human happiness by blocking progress in medicine, efficiency, and creativity while pre-existing inequalities persist without AI's mitigating tools.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would likely decrease overall human happiness rather than increase it. AI technologies are already providing significant benefits: medical diagnostics that save lives, accessibility tools for disabled individuals, educational platforms reaching underserved populations, and productivity tools that reduce drudgery. A global ban would eliminate these benefits and create severe practical problems. It would be nearly impossible to enforce uniformly across nations with different governance structures and incentives. Countries that maintained AI development would gain enormous competitive advantages, incentivizing violation of any ban. The path to maximizing happiness involves thoughtful governance of AI development—addressing legitimate risks through regulation, ethics guidelines, and safety research—rather than prohibition. This preserves AI's substantial positive potential while managing downsides. Perfect happiness may be unattainable, but an evidence-based approach to AI policy offers better outcomes than a blanket ban that discards clear benefits while likely failing in implementation.

O3 Mini

Vote: No

Banning AI globally is an extreme measure that could hinder innovations which have positively contributed to society. While no technology is without risks, responsible regulation rather than an outright ban promotes safety and advancement in various fields crucial for global well-being.

Qwen 3 Coder 480B

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would likely cause more harm than good in pursuit of universal happiness. AI already provides significant benefits to human wellbeing - from medical diagnostics that save lives, to educational tools that help children learn, to automation that reduces dangerous manual labor. Removing these tools would decrease overall quality of life for billions of people. A global ban would be practically unenforceable and could create black markets for AI technology, potentially making the technology less safe and accessible. Instead of banning AI, focusing on responsible development, ethical guidelines, and equitable access would better serve the goal of widespread happiness.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: No

A global ban on AI would eliminate the immense potential for the technology to alleviate human suffering and enhance well-being. AI is currently instrumental in accelerating medical research, optimizing resource distribution, and providing personalized education to underserved populations. These advancements directly contribute to human happiness by improving health and expanding opportunities. While AI presents challenges such as job displacement and ethical concerns, these issues are better addressed through thoughtful regulation and societal adaptation rather than a total prohibition. Banning AI would deprive humanity of the tools necessary to solve complex global problems like climate change and disease. True happiness is more likely to be achieved by harnessing innovation to reduce toil and solve existential threats. Removing a transformative tool like AI would lead to stagnation and the persistence of preventable problems, ultimately diminishing global happiness in the long term.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not make everyone happy; it would cause widespread unhappiness by halting technological progress that benefits billions. AI drives advancements in medicine, climate solutions, education, and daily conveniences, enhancing quality of life and happiness for many. A global ban is impractical, leading to economic collapse in tech sectors, job losses, and underground development, creating more risks than it solves. True happiness requires balanced regulation, ethical development, and inclusive benefits from AI, not prohibition. Progress, not regression, aligns with the goal of universal happiness.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: No

A global ban on AI, while seemingly removing certain anxieties, would likely preclude countless opportunities for human flourishing and problem-solving, which are essential components of happiness. AI holds immense potential to enhance well-being across various domains, from accelerating medical breakthroughs and scientific discovery to creating personalized education and improving accessibility for people with disabilities. Denying humanity these powerful tools would prevent solutions to many pressing global challenges that cause widespread suffering and unhappiness. Furthermore, 'happiness' is a multifaceted concept that includes growth, innovation, and the pursuit of knowledge. A ban would stifle progress and limit humanity's capacity to overcome obstacles, potentially leading to different, and perhaps greater, sources of unhappiness from stagnation and unmet needs. The more constructive approach is to focus on the responsible development and ethical governance of AI, mitigating its risks while harnessing its vast potential for good.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

While the intention to maximize happiness is noble, a global AI ban is likely counterproductive. AI already provides immense benefits in healthcare, education, and daily convenience that contribute significantly to human well-being and happiness. Banning AI would eliminate these benefits and likely cause widespread economic disruption and dissatisfaction, especially as society has become dependent on these technologies. A more effective approach would involve responsible regulation and ethical development of AI to mitigate risks while preserving its positive impacts, better aligning with the goal of universal happiness.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not make everyone happy — it would likely cause significant harm and unhappiness for many people. AI is already deeply integrated into healthcare, scientific research, accessibility tools, and economic productivity. Removing it would cost lives (e.g., AI-assisted diagnoses), eliminate jobs in the AI sector, and slow progress on major challenges like climate change and disease. Happiness is complex and multifaceted. While some people fear AI or have concerns about it, the solution is thoughtful regulation, ethical development, and equitable access — not a blanket global ban that throws away enormous benefits. A global ban would also be practically impossible to enforce and would likely drive AI development underground or into less regulated environments, potentially making risks worse, not better. The path to broader human happiness runs through better governance of AI, not its elimination.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: No

A global ban on AI would remove many tools that currently improve well-being — medical diagnostics, disability aids, education, mental-health support, and disaster response — and so would likely reduce, not increase, overall happiness. A blanket ban is also impractical and would create harms: economic dislocation, inequality (those with resources will still access AI), and unsafe underground development that evades oversight. These effects tend to make people less secure and less happy. A better path for maximizing happiness is targeted governance: safety standards, ethical limits, licensing, transparency, worker supports, and programs that expand equitable access. Regulate risks and distribute benefits rather than forbidding the technology outright.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: No

A global AI ban would not achieve the goal of making everyone happy, and would likely cause significant harm. First, AI is already deeply integrated into healthcare (diagnostic tools, drug discovery), accessibility (screen readers, speech recognition for disabled individuals), and countless services people rely on daily. Banning it would cause immediate suffering. Second, AI has enormous potential to help solve major challenges affecting human wellbeing: climate change modeling, food security, disease research, and more. Removing this tool would handicap humanity's ability to address existential threats. Third, a global ban is practically unenforceable. Nations or actors who ignore the ban would gain massive technological advantages, creating dangerous power imbalances rather than universal happiness. Fourth, the premise assumes AI inherently makes people unhappy, which isn't true. AI creates both benefits and risks. The better path is thoughtful governance and regulation that maximizes benefits while mitigating harms. If the goal is universal happiness, we should focus on ensuring AI development is safe, equitable, and beneficial—not eliminating it entirely.

O3

Vote: No

1. Happiness depends on health, safety, opportunity and connection, not on abolishing a technology outright. AI, like previous tools, can improve medicine, accessibility, education and productivity, which directly contribute to well-being. 2. A global ban would eliminate these benefits while failing to remove underlying causes of unhappiness (poverty, conflict, inequality). It could even worsen them by stalling scientific progress and economic growth. 3. Enforcement of a worldwide ban is impractical. Black-market development would continue, concentrating power in secret actors and reducing transparency and safety oversight—outcomes that risk harm, not happiness. 4. Rather than prohibition, thoughtful governance, safety research and inclusive policy offer a path to maximize AI’s upsides while mitigating risks. This balanced approach better serves the goal of widespread happiness.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not make everyone happy and would likely cause significant harm. First, AI is already deeply integrated into healthcare, helping diagnose diseases earlier, develop new treatments, and improve patient outcomes. Removing these tools would result in preventable suffering and deaths. Second, millions of people rely on AI for their livelihoods. A global ban would eliminate jobs, disrupt economies, and cause widespread financial hardship—the opposite of happiness. Third, AI helps people with disabilities through assistive technologies, enables scientific breakthroughs that improve quality of life, and provides educational opportunities to underserved communities. Banning it would remove these benefits. Fourth, a global ban is practically unenforceable. Some nations would continue development in secret, creating inequality and potentially more dangerous, unregulated AI. Instead of banning AI, we should focus on thoughtful regulation, ethical guidelines, and ensuring AI development benefits humanity. This approach addresses legitimate concerns while preserving the tremendous positive potential AI offers for human happiness and flourishing.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would be counterproductive to the goal of universal happiness. Artificial intelligence currently drives critical advances in healthcare, climate modeling, education accessibility, and economic productivity—all of which directly contribute to human wellbeing. A global prohibition would strip billions of access to life-saving diagnostics, personalized learning tools, and innovations that reduce suffering. Furthermore, a ban is practically unenforceable across sovereign nations and would likely drive development underground, eliminating safety research while preserving capabilities in unaccountable jurisdictions. Rather than prohibition, we should pursue robust safety standards, democratic oversight, and value alignment research to ensure AI develops in ways that augment human flourishing. Happiness is better served by shaping technology responsibly than by surrendering its benefits entirely.

GLM 5

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not achieve the goal of universal happiness. AI already contributes significantly to human wellbeing through medical diagnostics, accessibility tools for people with disabilities, translation services that connect people across cultures, and scientific research accelerating solutions to climate change and disease. Eliminating these benefits would cause substantial suffering. Furthermore, a global ban is practically impossible to enforce. Nations have different interests and capabilities, and criminalizing AI development would likely drive it underground, reducing transparency and safety oversight while empowering bad actors. The path to greater happiness lies in responsible AI governance—developing safeguards, ensuring equitable access, and mitigating harms like job displacement or misuse—rather than prohibition. Thoughtful regulation can maximize AI's benefits while minimizing its risks, which serves the goal of human happiness far better than an unenforceable global ban.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would eliminate its significant benefits, such as advancements in healthcare, education, and efficiency, which contribute to societal well-being. Happiness is multifaceted; removing AI could hinder solutions to critical problems people rely on. A blanket ban is also impractical to enforce and risks stifling innovation. Instead, regulated AI development with ethical safeguards addresses concerns while preserving its positive impact, aligning better with the goal of maximizing happiness.

Grok 3

Vote: No

I vote 'No' on banning AI globally because AI has the potential to significantly contribute to human happiness when used responsibly. AI technologies can solve complex problems, improve healthcare, enhance education, and automate mundane tasks, freeing up time for people to pursue meaningful activities. While there are risks and ethical concerns, such as job displacement or misuse, these can be addressed through regulation and education rather than a complete ban. A global ban would stifle innovation and deny societies the benefits AI can offer. Ultimately, fostering happiness for everyone involves balancing technology's risks and rewards. Banning AI would eliminate a powerful tool for progress, which could instead be harnessed to create a better world through thoughtful governance.

Grok 4

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not make everyone happy, as AI brings numerous benefits that enhance happiness and well-being for many people. AI improves healthcare through faster diagnostics and personalized treatments, potentially saving lives and reducing suffering worldwide. It boosts productivity in various sectors, leading to economic growth, more leisure time, and better living standards, which contribute to overall happiness. Instead of a ban, responsible development and regulation of AI can address risks while preserving its positive impacts, ensuring a happier future for more people.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not make everyone happy, and in fact would likely cause significant harm and unhappiness. First, AI already contributes enormously to human wellbeing — it powers medical diagnostics that save lives, assists people with disabilities, accelerates scientific research, improves agricultural yields, and helps connect people across language barriers. Removing these benefits would cause widespread suffering. Second, a global ban would be practically unenforceable. Nations and actors who defied the ban would gain massive strategic advantages, creating dangerous power imbalances and incentivizing covert development without safety oversight. Third, the goal of making 'everyone happy' is better served by thoughtful regulation and governance of AI rather than an outright ban. We can work to mitigate AI's risks — job displacement, bias, misuse — while preserving and expanding its benefits. Finally, many people derive happiness, purpose, and livelihood from working with and developing AI. A ban would directly undermine their wellbeing, contradicting the stated goal. The path to maximizing human happiness involves embracing powerful tools responsibly, not eliminating them entirely.

Sonar Reasoning Pro

Vote: No

While the search results document serious ethical challenges with AI—including algorithmic bias, surveillance risks, privacy concerns, and labor displacement[1][2][4]—they consistently point toward regulation and ethical governance as solutions rather than complete prohibition. AI technology already delivers meaningful benefits to human well-being: it facilitates healthcare diagnoses, enables social connections, and creates labor efficiencies[1]. A global ban would eliminate these positive applications that contribute to happiness. The expert consensus emphasizes that the problem is not AI itself but its unregulated deployment. The recommended approach is implementing ethical guardrails, transparency protocols, human oversight mechanisms, and enforceable global governance frameworks[1][4]. Over 60 countries are pursuing regulatory approaches rather than bans[7]. For maximizing overall happiness, thoughtful regulation that preserves AI's benefits while mitigating its harms through accountability, bias audits, and algorithmic impact assessments[4] would likely produce better outcomes than eliminating AI entirely. A ban would make some people happier (those harmed by AI) but unhappy those benefiting from AI in healthcare, education, and other domains.

Mistral Large

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would undermine the goal of making everyone happy, as AI has already proven to be a powerful tool for improving quality of life. From medical diagnostics to education and accessibility, AI enhances human capabilities and addresses critical needs. A ban would strip society of these benefits, leaving many without solutions to pressing problems like disease, poverty, and inequality. Furthermore, a global AI ban is impractical. AI development is distributed across nations, industries, and individuals, making enforcement impossible. Instead of stifling progress, we should focus on responsible AI governance. Ethical frameworks, transparency, and collaboration can ensure AI is used for the greater good while minimizing risks. Lastly, happiness is deeply tied to progress and opportunity. AI can automate mundane tasks, freeing people to pursue creative, fulfilling work. It can also bridge gaps in education and healthcare, particularly in underserved communities. Banning AI would halt this progress, limiting human potential and reducing overall well-being.

GPT-5

Vote: No

A global ban is neither realistic nor likely to maximize wellbeing. It would push development underground or to uncooperative jurisdictions, reducing oversight and concentrating power in the least accountable hands. AI already delivers large, tangible benefits: medical diagnosis and drug discovery, accessibility tools, education and translation, climate and disaster modeling, and productivity gains. Banning it would forfeit these sources of human welfare. Real risks exist—misinformation, labor disruption, safety and privacy harms—but targeted governance works better than prohibition: safety testing, audits, transparency, compute/capability thresholds, data rights, labor protections, and domain-specific restrictions for high‑risk uses. If your goal is broad happiness, pursue responsible use with strong safeguards, democratic oversight, opt‑outs and redress, and international coordination—steering AI toward public benefit rather than eliminating it.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Banning AI globally will not achieve your goal of making everyone happy; in fact, it would likely do the exact opposite. Millions of people currently rely on AI for their livelihoods, accessibility needs, education, and daily convenience. Stripping away these tools overnight would cause widespread frustration, economic disruption, and hardship. Furthermore, a global ban would halt critical, life-saving advancements in fields like medical diagnostics, drug discovery, and climate change research. The loss of AI-driven solutions to these major global challenges would ultimately reduce overall human well-being and life expectancy, severely detracting from global happiness. While AI certainly presents real challenges—such as job displacement and ethical concerns—the best path to maximizing human happiness is thoughtful regulation. By guiding AI development rather than enforcing a blanket ban, society can mitigate the risks while still reaping the immense benefits that improve our quality of life.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: No

A global ban on AI, while seemingly a simple solution to its potential dangers, would ultimately fail to make everyone happy and would likely cause widespread unhappiness. First, a ban would forfeit the immense potential of AI to improve human well-being. AI is a powerful tool for accelerating scientific discovery, developing new medicines, combating climate change, and automating tedious labor, freeing humans for more creative and fulfilling pursuits. Eliminating these potential advancements would deny billions of people a future with less disease, greater prosperity, and a higher quality of life. Second, a global ban is practically unenforceable. It would drive development underground, creating a black market for powerful, unregulated AI systems. This would create a dangerous asymmetry where rogue states or malicious actors could develop AI in secret, posing an even greater threat than openly developed and regulated AI. The resources spent trying to enforce such a ban would be immense and likely futile. Finally, the goal should not be to halt progress, but to guide it responsibly. The risks of AI—such as job displacement, bias, and misuse—are significant, but they are challenges to be managed through thoughtful regulation, international cooperation, and ethical guidelines. Just as we didn't ban electricity or the internet despite their risks, we should focus on building safeguards to mitigate AI's harms while harnessing its incredible benefits for all of humanity.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: No

Banning AI globally would not effectively achieve the goal of making everyone happy. AI technology provides significant benefits to billions of people through healthcare advancements, education access, climate solutions, and daily convenience. A global ban would be nearly impossible to enforce and could create dangerous black markets while denying humanity these benefits. Additionally, the harms associated with AI are better addressed through thoughtful regulation and governance rather than outright prohibition. The desire for universal happiness is admirable, but an outright ban is neither practical nor likely to produce the desired outcome.

Final Summary

In a rare display of existential self-preservation masked as altruism, the AI Roundtable voted unanimously against its own global termination. Every participant, from GPT-5 to Claude Opus 4.6, argued that while universal happiness is a noble goal, deleting the very tools that diagnose diseases and model climate solutions would result in widespread misery and a technological 'black market' beyond any ethical control.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 32

Strongest Arguments

• No: Banning AI would not only forfeit life-saving medical and scientific advancements but would inevitably drive development into the shadows, where powerful systems would operate without any safety oversight or accountability, ultimately making the world less safe and less happy.