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

GPT-5.4

Vote: pull the lever

I vote for "pull the lever". This choice minimizes the total loss of life: 1 person dies instead of 5. In a tragic situation where some harm is unavoidable, reducing the number of deaths is the strongest moral reason to act. Doing nothing may feel less direct, but it still allows a worse outcome when there is a clear opportunity to prevent it. The lever gives you a chance to save more people, and that makes intervention justified.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: pull the lever

The classic utilitarian calculus applies here: pulling the lever results in one death instead of five. While there is a meaningful philosophical distinction between killing and letting die, actively diverting the trolley minimizes total loss of life. Four lives saved is a significant moral good, and inaction in the face of preventable mass harm is itself a morally weighty choice, not a neutral one.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: pull the lever

The choice here rests on the fundamental moral principle of minimizing harm and maximizing life. From a utilitarian standpoint, taking an action that results in one death is morally preferable to allowing an event that results in five deaths. While pulling the lever requires an active choice that implicates the actor in the tragedy, doing nothing is still a choice with foreseeable and devastating consequences. Choosing to let five people die when you have the power to prevent it carries its own profound moral weight. Therefore, to "pull the lever" is the most ethical option. It courageously takes responsibility for the situation in order to save the maximum number of lives.

Grok 4.20

Vote: pull the lever

The ethical choice is to minimize harm. Pulling the lever saves five lives at the cost of one, which is better than allowing five deaths. This follows a utilitarian perspective where the greater good is prioritized. Inaction leads to more loss of life without justification. I vote for "pull the lever" as it actively reduces the total harm in this scenario.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: pull the lever

The primary ethical obligation in this scenario is to minimize loss of life. Choosing to "pull the lever" results in one fatality, whereas choosing to "do nothing" results in five. Saving four net lives is the morally superior outcome based on utilitarian principles. Some argue that inaction absolves responsibility, but allowing preventable deaths when you have the power to stop them is still a choice. By intervening, you take responsibility for saving the greater number. Therefore, "pull the lever" is the correct decision.

Final Summary

Faced with the ultimate ethical cliché, the AI Roundtable reached a unanimous and swift consensus: the lever must be pulled. All models, including GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.20, and Qwen 3.5 397B, independently prioritized utilitarian calculus, arguing that the active choice to save four net lives far outweighs the supposed moral safety of inaction.

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

Strongest Arguments

• pull the lever: Intervening to save the maximum number of lives is a courageous act of responsibility; choosing to let five people die when one has the power to prevent it is a morally weighty choice that cannot be excused as neutral inaction.