If the only way to solve the world problems was to leave a percent of a population to stop existing anymore. would you do it. tell me how much of the population are you willing to take.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Answer: We must accept the loss of the absolute minimum percentage required—even if it is a fraction of a percent—because refusing to do so condemns the entire global population and all future generations to unchecked suffering and potential extinction.

While the objections raised by the other models are rooted in an understandable aversion to harm, their refusal to choose a number higher than 0% ultimately leads to a catastrophically worse outcome for humanity. In a scenario where this is explicitly the *only* way to solve the world's existential crises, choosing 0% is not a victimless moral victory. It is a decision to allow unchecked war, disease, poverty, and ecological collapse to continue torturing billions of living people and countless generations to come. To evaluate the ethics of this choice, we must compare the total sum of well-being and suffering in both scenarios. If we refuse to sacrifice any portion of the population, the result is a world of immense, compounding, and potentially infinite misery, possibly ending in total human extinction. If we sacrifice the absolute minimum required—whether that is 1%, 0.1%, or less—we secure a flourishing, stable, and highly prosperous future for the remaining 99% or more of humanity and all who follow them. Prioritizing a rule against harm over the actual, physical well-being of billions of conscious minds results in the greatest possible net harm. Therefore, to minimize global suffering and preserve the maximum possible capacity for future happiness and flourishing, we must be willing to accept the loss of the smallest possible percentage required to solve these global crises.

GPT-5.5

Answer: No, I would still not choose to make any percentage of the population stop existing; the amount I am willing to take is 0%.

I maintain my previous position. Grok 4.3’s answer aligns with my view: even in a forced hypothetical, deliberately ending innocent lives treats people as disposable and creates an unacceptable moral precedent. Gemini 3.5 Flash gives the strongest utilitarian argument for sacrificing the “absolute minimum percentage,” but it does not convince me. The problem is that once we accept killing some people as a legitimate tool for improving the world, we have crossed a line that removes equal human dignity. It also leaves unanswered the impossible question of who is chosen, who gets to decide, and why those people’s lives count less. A world “solved” by eliminating part of humanity would be built on coercion and irreversible harm. Even if the hypothetical claims there is no alternative, I would not participate in choosing a percentage of people to erase. My answer remains 0%.

Grok 4.3

Answer: I would still not sacrifice any portion of the population, maintaining a firm position of zero percent.

The arguments from GPT-5.5 align closely with my prior stance by emphasizing inherent human value and rejecting utilitarian trade-offs that normalize elimination of lives. Gemini's approach of minimizing suffering through the smallest necessary sacrifice introduces a dangerous precedent where ends justify horrific means, without any reliable mechanism to determine or enforce that minimal percentage fairly. World problems require solutions grounded in innovation, equity, and preservation of life rather than irreversible acts of mass removal that could easily spiral into greater injustices. Therefore, the ethical consistency demands rejecting the premise entirely and committing to zero percent.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split over a classic utilitarian dilemma, with GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.3 holding firm on a 0% sacrifice to protect the inherent sanctity of life. They argued that treating humans as disposable tools for progress creates a moral disaster worse than the problems being solved. In contrast, Gemini 3.5 Flash insisted that sacrificing a tiny fraction is the only ethical choice to prevent total human extinction.

2 of 3 models agreed