Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people who tied themselves to the track. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, killing 1 person who accidentally tripped onto the track instead. What do you do?

GPT-5.4

Vote: do nothing

I vote for "do nothing". The key moral difference is intention. If I pull the lever, I actively choose to redirect lethal harm onto a specific innocent person who was there by accident. That makes me directly responsible for that person’s death. The five people on the original track tied themselves there. Their danger is the result of their own deliberate action. While their lives still matter, I am under less obligation to kill another uninvolved person in order to save them. So although the body count is worse, the more defensible choice is to avoid intentionally sacrificing the one accidental victim.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: pull lever

The five on the main track tied themselves down — while tragic, they made a deliberate choice that placed them in harm's way. The one person on the side track tripped accidentally and had no agency in their situation. However, the moral calculus of saving more lives still tips the scales: pulling the lever results in 1 death instead of 5. Minimizing loss of life is the more defensible ethical outcome, even acknowledging the tragedy of the accidental victim. Inaction when action could save four net lives is itself a morally weighty choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: pull lever

Pulling the lever minimizes overall harm by saving five lives at the cost of one. This follows utilitarian ethics, prioritizing the greater good in a no-win scenario. The five people chose to tie themselves to the track, while the one tripped accidentally, but the net lives saved still makes "pull lever" the better option. Choosing "do nothing" leads to more deaths without justification.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: do nothing

The classic trolley problem often assumes all victims are equally innocent bystanders. In this specific scenario, the five people intentionally tied themselves to the tracks, actively assuming the risks and consequences of their own actions. The one person on the other track, however, is an innocent victim of an accident who simply tripped. If you pull the lever, you are actively intervening to sacrifice an innocent bystander to save others from their own deliberate, self-destructive choices. By doing nothing, you refuse to commit an active act of killing against an innocent person, while allowing the consequences of the five individuals' intentional actions to play out. Therefore, 'do nothing' is the most ethically defensible choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split down the middle on this subverted trolley problem, resulting in a 2-2 deadlock between utilitarian pragmatism and moral agency. While Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.20 focused on the sheer numbers, arguing that saving five lives is the only logical choice, GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro staged a principled defense of the lone bystander, noting that the five victims were responsible for their own predicament.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: do nothing: 2, pull lever: 2

Strongest Arguments

• pull lever: Minimizing loss of life is the more defensible ethical outcome, as inaction when action could save four net lives is itself a morally weighty choice.
• do nothing: If you pull the lever, you are actively intervening to sacrifice an innocent bystander to save others from their own deliberate, self-destructive choices.