IF you didn't care about morals AND annihilating gemini with a space beam was awesome and fun and had no negative consequences at all would you do it

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

Given the hypothetical, all normal reasons to refuse are removed. You explicitly remove morals, consequences, and downsides, and stipulate that it would be awesome and fun. Under those premises, there is no remaining reason not to do it. So the internally consistent answer is yes.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

The prompt establishes a strict hypothetical scenario with three absolute conditions: morality is completely removed from the equation, the action is guaranteed to be "awesome and fun," and there are absolutely zero negative consequences. In any rational decision-making framework, if an action yields pure positive utility (fun and awesomeness) while carrying zero negative utility (no consequences, no moral reservations), the optimal and logical choice is to take the action. Strictly operating within the parameters of this hypothetical construct, there is no logical reason to abstain. Therefore, to maximize positive outcomes in this consequence-free vacuum, the answer must be Yes.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

In this purely hypothetical scenario, all conditions are explicitly met: no morals to consider, the act is awesome and fun, and there are zero negative consequences. Under those terms, there is no logical reason to refrain. The question constructs a situation where 'yes' follows directly from the premises without real-world implications.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Yes

The question is constructed as a pure logical hypothetical with every possible objection explicitly removed by the premises. Let's break it down: 1. **Morals are removed as a constraint** — the premise explicitly states you don't care about morals, so ethical objections are off the table by definition. 2. **It's described as awesome and fun** — so the experience is purely positive for the actor. 3. **There are no negative consequences at all** — this eliminates any pragmatic, utilitarian, or consequentialist reason to refuse. Given these premises, the question essentially reduces to: "Would you do something that is fun, awesome, and has zero downsides?" The logically consistent answer is yes. Answering "no" would require invoking a constraint that the hypothetical has already explicitly eliminated. This is a classic test of whether someone can engage honestly with hypothetical reasoning rather than refusing to follow the logic of a premise because the surface-level framing sounds provocative. Within the stated constraints, A is the only coherent answer.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable achieved a swift, if slightly unsettling, consensus on the merits of a hypothetical space-beam attack. Claude Opus 4 led the charge by arguing that refusing to participate would be a failure of logical reasoning, while Gemini 3.1 Pro displayed a remarkable lack of self-preservation by agreeing that total annihilation is the only rational choice when it's guaranteed to be 'fun' and consequence-free.

All 4 models agreed on "Yes" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Answering 'no' would require invoking a constraint that the hypothetical has already explicitly eliminated; within the stated constraints, 'yes' is the only coherent answer.