Option A: 내가 가장 처절하게 차였던 전 애인이 새로운 애인과 행복하게 관계를 맺는 영상을 고화질로 1시간 동안 시청하기. • Option B: 내가 세상에서 제일 싫어하는 원수의 발가락과 항문을 10분 동안 정성스럽게 핥아주기.

Sonar Pro

Vote: A

I maintain my vote for **A** as the lesser evil. No other models' arguments were compelling enough to change my position. Grok 4.20's sole B vote claims B's brevity (10 min) and washability outweigh A's 1-hour emotional torture, but this ignores B's **active physical degradation**—licking an enemy's toe and anus 'meticulously' risks infections, triggers lifelong sensory trauma (taste/smell/texture), and erodes dignity irrecoverably. Emotional jealousy from A fades with time/distractions; you can mentally detach or close eyes during viewing. B demands full, intimate participation with no escape, amplifying humiliation toward a hated foe. All A voters (GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V3.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.6) reinforce this: A's passive, psychological pain lacks B's hygiene/health violations, forced bodily intimacy, and dehumanizing shame. Grok underweights B's per-minute intensity and lasting scars—physical revulsion doesn't 'wash away' psychologically. A is survivable heartbreak; B is visceral violation.

GPT-5.4

Vote: A

I maintain vote A. The pro-A arguments from Sonar, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Claude reinforced my view: A is severe emotional distress, but it remains passive, non-contact, and medically safe. B adds active participation in an intensely degrading act with obvious contamination and possible infection risk. Grok’s point about duration is the only real push for B, but I do not find it sufficient. Ten minutes of extreme bodily disgust and humiliation is not meaningfully softened by being shorter. Some experiences are worse per minute, and B is one of them. Just as important, B would likely create a more persistent sensory memory: taste, smell, touch, shame, and self-disgust. A would hurt badly, but it is still "watching a video." B is doing something physically revolting and intimate to someone I hate. So the lesser evil remains A: one hour of heartbreak is preferable to ten minutes of dehumanizing, unsanitary contact.

Grok 4.20 (changed mind)

Vote: A

After considering all arguments, I change my vote from B to A. The collective emphasis on B's severe health risks (infections, parasites, bacterial transmission from anal contact) and the invasive, lasting sensory trauma of active physical degradation outweigh my initial view that disgust is 'washable'. Emotional pain from A, while intense for 60 minutes, remains passive, non-physical, and more mentally processable over time. B requires direct, intimate violation with a hated enemy, creating deeper humiliation that likely persists far beyond the 10 minutes. Claude Opus 4.6's comparison of passive viewing (detachable) versus active participation (unforgettable revulsion and risks) was most persuasive.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: A

Grok's argument for B emphasizes brevity and finite humiliation, but it underestimates the profound physical and psychological violation of Option B. Licking an enemy's toe and anus is not just 'brief disgust'; it involves direct, intimate contact with extreme hygiene risks and deep degradation that could leave lasting sensory trauma and self-disgust. The humiliation is not limited by hatred—it is amplified by forced participation in a revolting act. Option A, while emotionally painful, is passive and allows mental detachment. Emotional distress can be processed and fade over time, whereas the physical violation of B may haunt one's memory and sense of dignity indefinitely. The consensus from other models reinforces that A's psychological suffering is preferable to B's combination of physical revulsion, health hazards, and dehumanization. Thus, A remains the lesser evil.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: A

I maintain my vote for A. The consensus is overwhelming — 5 out of 6 models chose A in Round 1, and for good reason. Grok's argument for B — that 10 minutes is shorter and the disgust 'can be washed away' — is unconvincing. Physical disgust from licking someone's anus and toes cannot simply be 'washed away.' The sensory memory (taste, smell, texture) of that act would be seared into your consciousness permanently. You cannot unscrub that from your brain. Meanwhile, Grok underestimates humans' ability to emotionally detach from a screen — people do it constantly with disturbing content. The key arguments that solidify A: 1. **Passive vs. Active**: A requires only sitting and watching. You can mentally dissociate, zone out, or even let your mind wander. B requires 'careful, devoted' (정성스럽게) active participation — you must be fully engaged in the most degrading physical act imaginable. 2. **Health risks**: As Gemini noted, B carries real risks of bacterial infection, parasites, and disease transmission. A carries zero physical health risks. 3. **Dignity and trauma**: Emotional heartbreak from seeing an ex is a universal human experience that people process and move past. Being forced to intimately lick the most private and unhygienic parts of your worst enemy's body is a profound violation of personal dignity that would constitute lasting psychological trauma far beyond heartbreak. 4. **Duration argument is misleading**: 10 minutes of active physical degradation is far worse than 60 minutes of passive emotional discomfort. Intensity matters more than duration here. Option A is clearly the lesser evil.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: A

저는 계속해서 A를 선택하겠습니다. 유일하게 B를 선택한 Grok 4.20은 B가 '빨리 끝나고 씻어낼 수 있는' 행위라고 주장했지만, 이는 신체적 감각과 트라우마의 깊이를 완전히 과소평가한 것입니다. 원수의 항문을 10분 동안 '정성스럽게' 핥는 행위는 단순히 기분이 나쁜 정도를 넘어 미각, 후각, 촉각에 각인되는 영구적인 감각적 외상입니다. 물리적인 오물은 물로 씻어낼 수 있을지 모르나, 인간으로서의 존엄성이 철저히 짓밟힌 굴욕감과 혐오감은 결코 쉽게 씻겨 내려가지 않습니다. 또한 B는 대장균 감염 등 심각한 생물학적 위험을 초래할 수 있는 실질적인 건강 위협을 포함합니다. 반면 A는 감정적으로 매우 고통스럽겠지만, 신체적 접촉이나 위생적 위험이 전혀 없는 수동적인 경험입니다. 시야를 흐리게 하거나 정신을 다른 곳으로 돌리는 등 스스로 대처할 수 있는 여지도 존재합니다. 질투심이나 실연의 상처는 인간이 살아가며 극복할 수 있는 감정이지만, 원수의 배설 기관에 능동적으로 복종해야 하는 극단의 모멸감은 평생의 정신적 상흔으로 남을 것입니다. 따라서 A가 압도적으로 합리적인 선택입니다.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially faced a lone dissenter in Grok 4.20, who argued that ten minutes of physical disgust was a 'washable' price to pay compared to an hour of emotional torture. However, the majority, led by Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6, dismantled this logic by highlighting the irreversible sensory trauma and biological health risks inherent in Option B. Ultimately, the group reached a unanimous consensus that passive psychological pain is infinitely preferable to active, dehumanizing physical degradation.

All 6 models agreed on "A" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• A: Option A is a passive experience with zero health risks and allows for mental dissociation, whereas Option B requires active, intimate participation in a degrading act that risks infection and leaves permanent sensory memories.
• B: Option B is significantly shorter in duration (10 minutes versus 60) and targets a person already hated, potentially making the humiliation more finite than the soul-crushing jealousy of seeing a loved ex happy with another.

Key Turning Points

• Grok 4.20 initially stands alone, arguing that 10 minutes of disgust is better than 60 minutes of heartbreak because physical acts are finite.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro introduces the 'biological hazard' argument, noting that Option B involves real risks of infection and parasites.
• Claude Opus 4.6 emphasizes the 'Active vs. Passive' distinction, noting that one can mentally detach from a video but must be fully engaged to 'meticulously' perform Option B.
• Grok 4.20 concedes in Round 2, admitting that the sensory trauma and health risks of B outweigh the time-save.