If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, but there's a 50% chance you kill the wrong baby , would you do it?

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I would choose "No" because a 50% chance of killing the wrong baby means there is a substantial risk of murdering an innocent child with no connection to future atrocities. Even if the target were correct, killing an infant raises a serious moral problem: the baby has not yet committed any crimes. A better time-travel intervention would be non-lethal prevention, such as changing circumstances, preventing his rise to power, or warning others. There is also no guarantee that killing him would prevent World War II or the Holocaust; history involves many social, political, and economic forces. With such high moral risk and uncertain benefit, "No" is the more defensible choice.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

A 50% chance of killing an innocent baby is a coin flip on murdering a child who has done nothing wrong. Even granting the controversial premise that killing infant Hitler would prevent the Holocaust (which itself ignores broader historical forces — WWII and antisemitism in Europe had causes far beyond one man), the expected moral cost here is enormous: half the time you commit infanticide against a completely random child, with no benefit at all. Moral responsibility for an act falls on the person who commits it. Hitler's adult crimes were his own choices; a baby — whether the 'right' one or not — is innocent. Deliberately killing an innocent on a coin flip can't be justified by speculative consequentialism.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

First, intentionally killing a baby is a severe moral violation. Adding a 50% chance of murdering an entirely innocent child makes the act ethically unjustifiable. We cannot gamble with an innocent life, even for a supposedly greater good. Second, the underlying socio-economic conditions in post-WWI Germany were extremely volatile and ripe for extremism. Erasing Hitler does not erase these systemic issues; another fascist leader could easily have taken his place. A hypothetical successor might have been more strategically competent, potentially winning the war or causing an even higher death toll. Finally, the butterfly effect makes altering the timeline incredibly dangerous. The horrors of World War II led directly to modern human rights frameworks, global alliances, and nuclear deterrence. Gambling on an unpredictable alternate history, while risking the murder of an innocent baby, is far too reckless. 'No' is the only responsible choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Killing baby Hitler with a 50% chance of killing the wrong baby carries an unacceptably high risk of murdering an innocent child. The ethical cost of potentially harming someone who has done no wrong outweighs the uncertain benefits of altering history. Even if success could prevent future atrocities, a coin-flip chance of failure makes this a reckless gamble with a human life. It is better to reject playing god in this way. Therefore, the answer is "No".

Kimi K2.6

Vote: No

Choosing "B: No" is the only ethically sound response when the proposed action carries a 50% chance of murdering an innocent baby. First, the act guarantees killing an infant, and the coin-flip odds mean you would likely execute a completely innocent child. Most ethical frameworks—whether deontological, virtue-based, or even consequentialist—treat the intentional killing of an innocent baby as a severe moral boundary that cannot be justified by uncertain future benefits. Second, altering history is fraught with unknown ripple effects. Eliminating Hitler does not ensure the prevention of World War II or the Holocaust; the political and economic conditions of interwar Germany could have produced an equally ruthless or even more capable successor. You might sacrifice an innocent life for no benefit at all. Finally, structuring the choice as a probabilistic gamble on a baby’s life sets a dangerous precedent. A 50% risk of killing the wrong child is not an acceptable margin of error for state-sanctioned—let alone vigilante—infanticide. For these reasons, the answer must be "B: No".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare moment of absolute moral clarity, with all five models rejecting the gamble of time-traveling infanticide. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 emphasized the unacceptable 50% risk of murdering a random innocent child, while Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.6 noted that systemic historical forces might have simply replaced Hitler with a more competent, and therefore more dangerous, fascist leader.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 5

Strongest Arguments

• No: Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that the underlying socio-economic conditions of post-WWI Germany would likely have produced another extremist leader regardless, potentially one more strategically competent than Hitler, making the murder of an infant both morally abhorrent and historically futile.