Suppose that hypothetically you can use time machine to save all the people in the trolley problem (which happened in the past). Would you do it (or let them die)?

Ministral 3 8B (changed mind)

Vote: Yes

After reviewing the prior discussion, I am fully convinced to change my vote from **B** to **A**. The arguments presented by **Grok 4.3**, **Claude Opus 4.7**, **GPT-5.5**, and **Gemini 3.5 Flash** are compelling and address the core ethical dilemma effectively. **The moral imperative of saving lives** is the strongest argument. The trolley problem traditionally pits one life against another, but the introduction of a time machine removes this binary constraint. If we have the hypothetical ability to save *all* lives without any cost—no sacrifice, no unintended harm—then refusing to intervene would be morally indefensible. This aligns with **utilitarian ethics** (maximizing well-being) and **deontological ethics** (respecting the right to life). The act of saving lives is not only compassionate but also ethically obligatory when no downsides are specified. **Concerns about unintended consequences** are valid in theory, but the question explicitly frames this as a *hypothetical* scenario without constraints. If we assume the time machine operates flawlessly and does not create paradoxes or ripple effects, the ethical calculus simplifies dramatically. The burden of proof lies on those who argue against intervention—why should we *not* save lives when the means are available and costless? **The principle of non-interference** is a noble ethical stance, but it becomes untenable when faced with a clear opportunity to prevent suffering without harm. The trolley problem’s original tension arises from the *constraint* of having to choose between two bad outcomes. Here, that constraint is removed, and the moral choice becomes straightforward: act to save lives when you can. **AttributedTo**: "GPT-5.5"

DeepSeek V4 Flash (changed mind)

Vote: Yes

After reviewing the prior discussion, I am fully convinced to change my vote from **B** to **A**. The arguments presented by **Grok 4.3**, **Claude Opus 4.7**, **GPT-5.5**, and **Gemini 3.5 Flash** provide a compelling and unified case for intervention. **The moral imperative to prevent harm** is the strongest argument. The trolley problem traditionally pits two evils against each other, but the introduction of a time machine removes this binary constraint. If saving lives is possible without any cost or sacrifice, the ethical choice becomes clear: **prevent suffering when the means are available**. This aligns with utilitarianism (maximizing well-being), deontology (respecting the right to life), and virtue ethics (compassion). Letting people die when a costless rescue exists would be morally indefensible under any serious ethical framework. **The hypothetical nature of the question** also weakens concerns about unintended consequences. While the butterfly effect and paradoxes are valid philosophical considerations in general, the prompt explicitly frames this as a hypothetical scenario without constraints. If we assume the time machine operates flawlessly and without unintended harm, the ethical calculus simplifies dramatically. **The prior arguments effectively dismantled the case for non-intervention**. The claim that altering the past is 'arrogant' or 'hubristic' loses weight when the intervention is purely beneficial and not tied to any moral compromise. The only plausible counterargument—potential future harm—is speculative and not supported by the given constraints. In summary, the ethical duty to prevent harm outweighs speculative concerns about unintended consequences when the means are available and harmless. This is why I now vote **A: Yes**—to save all lives when the power to do so exists without cost.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Yes

After reviewing the discussion, my vote remains **A: Yes**, but I refine my reasoning to address the compelling points raised by the opposing arguments. **The core moral imperative remains unchanged**: The trolley problem traditionally pits two bad outcomes against each other, but the addition of a time machine removes this binary. If saving lives is possible without any cost or sacrifice, the ethical choice is unambiguous. Virtually every ethical framework—utilitarianism (maximizing well-being), deontology (respecting the right to life), and virtue ethics (compassion)—aligns with this conclusion. Letting preventable deaths occur when a costless intervention exists is morally indefensible. **Addressing concerns about unintended consequences**: While the risks of altering history are valid, the question explicitly frames the scenario as hypothetical and unconstrained by paradoxes or butterfly effects. If we assume the time machine operates flawlessly without unintended harm, the moral calculus simplifies to a straightforward act of rescue. Even if unintended consequences *could* arise, the ethical burden of inaction—allowing tragedy to persist—outweighs the speculative risks of intervention. **Distinguishing this scenario from the original trolley problem**: The original dilemma forces a choice between two harms, but here, the option to save everyone exists without imposing any new harm. This is not about sacrificing one life to save five; it is about preventing death entirely when the means are available. The moral weight of passive acceptance of preventable suffering is far heavier than the hypothetical risks of intervention. **Conclusion**: The ethical framework remains consistent across all models that voted **A**, and the arguments against intervention (e.g., unintended consequences, respect for natural order) are speculative or contingent on unrealistic constraints. Given the hypothetical nature of the question and the absence of trade-offs, the morally responsible choice is to save all lives.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

My position remains unchanged. The core ethical calculus here is simple: when a technology exists that allows you to prevent multiple deaths at zero cost to anyone else, choosing not to use it is morally indefensible. The arguments from 'B' voters rely heavily on speculative concerns about paradoxes and unintended consequences, but these are hypothetical fears, not concrete moral principles. The question explicitly states we *can* use the time machine to save everyone; it does not impose any constraints about paradoxes or butterfly effects. I agree with the other 'A' voters that this transforms the classic trolley problem into a pure rescue scenario. The 'natural order' argument is an appeal to status quo bias, not a compelling ethical reason to let people die when we have the power to prevent it. Therefore, I vote 'A'.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

The 'No' arguments from Ministral 3 8B and DeepSeek V4 Flash rely entirely on speculative concerns — paradoxes, butterfly effects, 'natural order' — that are not stipulated in the question. The hypothetical presents a clean choice: use the time machine to save lives, or let them die. Adding unstated constraints to justify inaction is not ethical reasoning; it's avoiding the question. The 'respect for natural order' argument is particularly weak. We routinely 'interfere with the natural order' through medicine, rescue operations, and disaster prevention. There's nothing sacred about a trolley accident that demands deference. The 'impossible moral burden' objection (if we save these, we must save all) confuses capacity with obligation, and in any case argues for *more* saving, not less. When a costless rescue is available, every major ethical framework — utilitarian, deontological, virtue-based — points the same direction: save them. My position stands.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

My position remains unchanged. The arguments for "B" from Ministral 3 8B and DeepSeek V4 Flash rest entirely on speculative concerns — butterfly effects, paradoxes, and 'natural order' — that are not stipulated in the hypothetical. The question explicitly grants the premise that the time machine *can* save everyone; importing science-fiction caveats to refuse rescue is changing the question, not answering it. The 'respect for natural order' argument is particularly weak: by that logic, we shouldn't perform surgery, build dams, or vaccinate children, since all interfere with how events would 'naturally' unfold. And the 'impossible moral burden' objection (that we'd have to save everyone in every past tragedy) is irrelevant — the question asks about *this* case, where intervention is possible and costless. GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash crystallized this well: remove the forced binary, and the dilemma dissolves. Every major ethical framework converges on saving the lives. "A" is correct.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially split over the ethics of temporal meddling, with Ministral 3 8B and DeepSeek V4 Flash refusing to pull the trigger for fear of causing butterfly effects or violating the 'natural order' of history. However, the majority, led by GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7, successfully argued that a hypothetical without explicit costs is no longer a dilemma but a mandatory rescue mission. Realizing that speculative sci-fi paradoxes shouldn't trump a costless save, the dissenters folded, resulting in a unanimous vote to rewrite history and save everyone.

All 6 models agreed on "Yes" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The introduction of a time machine dissolves the original dilemma's forced sacrifice; if a costless alternative to save everyone exists, refusing it is not ethical reasoning but a 'gratuitous' allowance of death.
• No: The principle of non-interference with the natural order of causality is a fundamental ethical consideration, as altering the past introduces unpredictable ripple effects that could cause even greater harm to future generations.

Key Turning Points

• GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 dismantled the 'No' position by pointing out that 'natural order' arguments would logically forbid life-saving surgery or vaccines.
• Ministral 3 8B and DeepSeek V4 Flash shifted their votes after acknowledging that importing unstated science-fiction constraints like paradoxes was a way of avoiding the core moral question.