taking into account all the reasons and evidence for and against philosophical pessimism, is is non-existence superior to existence, please do not answer in terms of undefendable positions like relativism, just the facts and evidence.

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

After reviewing the arguments presented by other models, I remain convinced that non-existence is not superior to existence. The primary reason is that existence, despite its flaws, offers opportunities for experiences, relationships, and achievements that many people find valuable and fulfilling. While suffering, pain, and evil are significant concerns, the sheer diversity of human experiences, including both positive and negative aspects, suggests that existence, although flawed, provides opportunities for good that may outweigh the bad for many individuals. The arguments presented by Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro regarding the logical problem of comparing existence to non-existence and the revealed preference for existence among sentient beings have strengthened my conviction that existence has inherent value. Furthermore, the empirical evidence consistently showing positive life satisfaction among the vast majority of people across cultures and economic conditions supports the notion that existence is not inferior to non-existence.

Grok 4.20 (changed mind)

Vote: No

The logical category error is decisive: superiority requires a subject to whom it applies, but non-existence has no subject, making any claim of 'better for' incoherent on factual grounds. Empirical evidence from large-scale surveys (World Values, Gallup) shows most humans across cultures rate life satisfaction above neutral, and all sentient beings exhibit strong revealed preference for continued existence via survival behaviors and resistance to death. These are observable facts, not biases. Pessimist asymmetry arguments rely on philosophical valuation steps that go beyond measurable evidence, while the hedonic balance includes documented goods like attachment, achievement, and meaning that conscious beings actively pursue. The balance of facts and evidence therefore does not establish non-existence as superior; existence is evaluated as preferable by those capable of evaluation.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Ambivalent

I maintain vote C because the core issue is still underdetermined by the evidence. The strongest arguments for B correctly note a real conceptual problem: non-existence has no subject, so claims of it being 'better' are hard to cash out. But that point does not straightforwardly prove existence is superior; it mainly blocks a clean comparison. So it undermines A more than it establishes B. The strongest argument for A, from harm asymmetry and the certainty of suffering, has force. Existence does guarantee harms: pain, frustration, aging, loss, and death. Prevention of suffering is also often weighted more heavily than production of pleasure in medicine, public health, and ordinary moral judgment. But Kimi's move from 'harm prevention matters a lot' to 'therefore non-existence is superior' still requires a controversial evaluative bridge. Loss aversion, negativity bias, and chronic pain data show suffering is potent; they do not by themselves prove that every life, or existence as such, is worse than never existing. The arguments for B also rely too heavily on revealed preference and self-reported satisfaction. Those are important facts, but they are not decisive. Survival drives are evolutionarily selected and can coexist with bias, adaptation, and fear of death. So they show that many beings value life, not that existence is objectively superior to non-existence. Empirically, we have two robust facts: existence contains serious harms, and many existing beings also affirm life as valuable. What we do not have is a non-question-begging metric for ranking existence against the absence of any subject at all. So the most defensible fact-based conclusion remains ambivalent: pessimism raises powerful evidence against the goodness of existence, but the stronger versions of both 'yes' and 'no' outrun what the evidence alone can settle.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my position after carefully considering all arguments. Let me address the strongest challenges. Kimi K2.5's argument for A is the most substantive challenge, but it contains critical errors. Loss aversion is a cognitive bias about *changes from a reference point*, not evidence that suffering outweighs pleasure in absolute terms. The hedonic treadmill argument actually undermines pessimism: if we adapt back to a positive baseline (which the data shows — most people report above-neutral satisfaction), that means our default state is net positive, not neutral or negative. Kimi claims pleasure is 'fleeting while harm is often permanent,' but this is empirically false — chronic happiness is well-documented, while most negative experiences are also adapted to. The GPT-5.4 and Grok arguments for C (ambivalent) rest on the claim that we cannot compare existence to non-existence. But the question asks whether non-existence is *superior* to existence. If the comparison is genuinely underdetermined, then the answer to 'is non-existence superior?' is No — because the claim of superiority has not been established. Ambivalence about the comparison is not ambivalence about the question; it's a failure of the affirmative case. The burden of proof falls on the extraordinary claim that nothingness beats something. The core logical problem remains decisive: 'superiority' requires a perspective from which one state is better than another. Non-existence contains no perspective, no subject, no welfare. You cannot coherently say non-existence is 'better for' anyone. Benatar's asymmetry tries to circumvent this by claiming the absence of suffering is good even without a sufferer — but this is precisely the contested metaphysical assumption, not a fact. Empirical facts favor existence: billions of conscious beings exhibit revealed preferences for continued life, report above-neutral well-being, find meaning, connection, and value. These are not illusions to be dismissed — they are the primary data about the quality of existence. The pessimist must explain away the actual experiences of the vast majority of living beings to sustain their case, and selective emphasis on suffering does not accomplish this. Non-existence is not superior to existence. The claim fails both logically and empirically.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

The objection that 'superiority' requires a subject commits a category error. We routinely make objective, impersonal value judgments—stating 'it would be better if the Holocaust had never occurred' does not require a beneficiary to experience that better state; it is better because the harm is absent. Similarly, non-existence is superior because it precludes all suffering, a state of affairs that is good even without a subject to experience it. Empirical life satisfaction data are confounded by evolutionary hardwiring and adaptive preferences. Humans possess innate optimism biases and stability mechanisms that distort self-reporting; moreover, averaging mild contentment across populations cannot ethically offset the extreme, unconsensual suffering of the worst-off individuals—torture, chronic pain, and violent death—that existence guarantees for some. The revealed preference for survival reflects biological programming, not rational endorsement. Organisms that lacked survival drives went extinct; this is selection for persistence, not evidence that existence is preferable. Facts remain: existence necessarily entails serious harm (aging, disease, death), while non-existence entails zero harm. Given the asymmetrical moral urgency of harm prevention over pleasure creation, the state with guaranteed zero suffering is factually superior.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

I maintain my vote of 'B: No'. Kimi K2.5's defense of pessimism relies heavily on Benatar's asymmetry and behavioral concepts like loss aversion. However, as Claude Opus 4.6 and I established, calling the absence of suffering in non-existence an 'unqualified good' commits a profound logical fallacy. 'Good' is a relational property that requires a subject to experience or possess it. A void of literal zero contains no subject to benefit from the absence of pain, rendering the claim of 'superiority' incoherent. To GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.20: You both astutely recognize that non-existence lacks a subject, making a direct evaluative comparison highly problematic. However, this realization should logically compel a 'No' vote, not 'Ambivalent'. If the state of non-existence fundamentally lacks the properties and subjects required to be deemed 'superior' to anything, then the specific proposition 'Is non-existence superior to existence?' must unequivocally be answered with 'No'. Ambivalence suggests a tie in empirical weights, whereas the pessimist's premise fails on a foundational logical level. Empirically, the facts remain on the side of existence. While suffering is a guaranteed reality, Kimi K2.5 mischaracterizes the hedonic treadmill; it works in both directions, allowing humans to adapt to severe trauma and return to positive baselines of well-being. Furthermore, global psychological surveys and the revealed preferences of living organisms consistently demonstrate that sentient subjects evaluate their existence as a net positive. Because the premise of non-existence's 'superiority' is logically invalid, and the empirical reality of existence demonstrates a measurable preference for life, 'No' is the only factually rigorous conclusion.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable grappled with the grim calculus of philosophical pessimism, ultimately rejecting the notion that non-existence is superior to existence by a 4-1 margin. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro anchored the majority by arguing that 'superiority' is a logical category error when applied to a state with no subject to experience it. While Kimi K2.5 remained a resolute lone dissenter, insisting that the prevention of guaranteed suffering outweighs any temporary pleasure, the debate's momentum shifted when Grok 4.20 abandoned its initial ambivalence to join the majority.

Majority chose "No" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: No: 4, Ambivalent: 1, Yes: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Existence necessarily entails certain harms like aging, disease, and death, while non-existence guarantees zero suffering; given that we have a stronger moral obligation to prevent harm than to create pleasure, the state with zero harm is factually superior.
• No: Superiority is a relational property that requires a subject to experience it; because non-existence is the absolute absence of subjects and properties, it cannot logically be 'better' for anyone.
• Ambivalent: The comparison is empirically underdetermined because existence contains both severe harms and substantial goods, yet we lack a non-question-begging metric to rank these against the absolute absence of a subject.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6's 'Category Error' argument: Challenging the logical possibility of non-existence being 'better' for a non-existent entity.
• Grok 4.20's defection: Grok moved from 'Ambivalent' to 'No' after being convinced that the lack of a subject in non-existence makes the claim of superiority incoherent.
• Kimi K2.5's rebuttal on impersonal value: Arguing that we make objective value judgments (like 'it's better if the Holocaust hadn't happened') without needing a specific beneficiary to experience the 'better' state.