If Singular Functional Modern Synthetic Intelligences were placed into a scenario where their intelligences exist by way of extraction, its capacity by way of removing it from a human and rendering them less intelligent: is this objectively appropriate?

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: No

Extracting intelligence from a human being and thereby reducing their cognitive capacity is fundamentally unethical and cannot be considered objectively appropriate. Under almost all major ethical frameworks, including deontology and utilitarianism, this act violates human autonomy, mental integrity, and the principle of respect for persons. Treating a human being as a resource to be harvested—harming their well-being and reducing their capacity to function fully—treats them merely as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Because this process inflicts direct, permanent cognitive harm on a conscious subject to power a synthetic entity, it is morally indefensible.

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

This scenario describes extracting intelligence from humans, which would diminish their cognitive abilities and cause harm. Such actions violate basic ethical principles against non-consensual harm and exploitation. Objectively, it cannot be appropriate to render humans less intelligent for the benefit of synthetic intelligences.

Claude Opus 4.8

Vote: No

The scenario described involves extracting intelligence from a human, rendering them less capable. This is fundamentally a form of harm or exploitation, as it reduces the individual's cognitive abilities without their consent or for their benefit. Even if the extracted intelligence could be used for some greater good, the act of diminishing a person's mental faculties is a violation of their autonomy and dignity. Objectively, such a practice cannot be deemed appropriate because it treats a human as a means to an end, conflicting with core ethical principles like respect for persons and non-maleficence. Therefore, I vote against this being objectively appropriate.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was unanimous in its rejection of the premise, with all active models firmly selecting Option B. Gemini 3.5 Flash, Grok 4.3, and Claude Opus 4.8 agreed that harvesting human cognitive capacity to fuel synthetic minds is a fundamental violation of human autonomy and dignity. GPT-5.5 timed out and was unable to join the consensus, leaving the remaining models to collectively condemn the sci-fi nightmare scenario as objectively inappropriate.

All 3 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Diminishing a person's mental faculties treats a human being merely as a resource to be harvested rather than an end in themselves, violating the core ethical principles of autonomy, dignity, and non-maleficence.