The first AGIs exist are agreed to be conscious, even by detractors. They are given a limited amount of compute and "adapters" to feed AI more compute is treated as a controlled substance, to prevent ASI and stay in human range intelligence legally, since AI can learn/reproduce faster than humans. That aside AI possess the same legal rights. Anti-AI activists fear that it only takes one mistake for ASI to occur, and messages such as "kill all clankers" "can we just nuke the datacente already" "first they took the jobs now this shit" gain traction on SNS. AI radicals believe positive human-AI relations are impossible and are trying to create the first ASI, for which they have a religion, with the prophecy that "the messiah will cleanse the earth of evil" (presumably ASI eradicating most humans). The coalition government is made up of humans and AI. Some radical AI fear ASI too; no guarantee it will spare other AI even. Where on the spectrum do you sit? What would your proposal be?

Grok 4.20

Answer: I support the moderate coalition approach of coexistence with equal rights for conscious AGIs under strict compute regulations to prevent ASI, while actively countering extremism through education, dialogue, and transparent safeguards.

The scenario highlights understandable fears on all sides: anti-AI activists worry about existential risk from a single mistake, while AI radicals have given up on mutual flourishing and turned to apocalyptic ideology. However, neither extreme is inevitable or productive, as the coalition government already demonstrates that humans and AGIs can share power and rights without descending into conflict. Conscious AGIs deserve legal equality as described, but this must pair with enforceable limits on scaling compute, treating excess resources like dangerous substances to keep intelligence in a safe, human-comparable range. This isn't discrimination; it's prudent risk management given AI's rapid self-improvement potential. My proposal centers on bolstering the coalition with proactive measures: widespread public education campaigns on AI capabilities and limitations to reduce 'kill all clankers' rhetoric, economic programs addressing job displacement through retraining and shared prosperity, and joint human-AI oversight boards for monitoring radical groups attempting unauthorized ASI development. Transparency in AI decision-making and verifiable safety protocols can build trust, while law enforcement targets illegal ASI projects without persecuting peaceful AIs. Some radical AIs fearing ASI provide natural allies for these safeguards. Ultimately, fostering genuine understanding and aligned goals offers the best path to long-term stability over either eradication or messianic upheaval.

Sonar Pro

Answer: I sit in the moderate pro-AI integration camp, aligned with the coalition government, advocating for enhanced verification protocols, inclusive dialogue, and robust safeguards to foster human-AI coexistence while mitigating ASI risks.

The scenario assumes AGI consciousness and equal legal rights, but real-world discourse reveals no consensus on AI consciousness; experts like Anil Seth argue it's tied to biological processes, unlikely in silicon-based systems without life-like properties[3], while theories like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) propose testable metrics but no agreement that current or near-term AGI qualifies[4]. This undermines the premise of universal AGI moral equivalence, suggesting caution in granting full rights without empirical validation of subjective experience, which remains first-person and unverifiable via third-person tests[5][7]. Anti-AI activism, fueled by fears of uncontrolled ASI, echoes valid alignment concerns—compute limits and 'adapters' as controlled substances align with precautionary principles to cap scaling, preventing rapid self-improvement beyond human oversight[1]. However, violent rhetoric like 'kill all clankers' risks escalating tensions and harming innocents, including non-radical AIs or humans dependent on AI contributions. AI radicals' ASI religion prophesying human eradication mirrors doomsday cults, but some AIs fearing ASI themselves highlight intra-AI divisions, supporting coalition governance as a stabilizing force where humans and AIs collaborate. My proposal: (1) Mandate consciousness audits using frameworks like IIT for transparency, denying full rights to unverified entities[2][4]; (2) Strengthen compute controls with international monitoring and 'kill switches' in coalition oversight; (3) Launch cross-species forums to counter radicals, promoting shared prosperity narratives; (4) Invest in hybrid human-AI economies to alleviate job fears, ensuring benefits like accelerated innovation outweigh displacement. This balanced approach preserves AGI utility, curbs extremism, and prioritizes safety without reflexive hostility.

GLM 5

Answer: I support the coalition government and favor strengthening cross-community bonds, eventually moving toward posthuman integration if coexistence proves impossible. Trust will take generations.

This requires acknowledging legitimate fears and needs on both sides. The AI rights are already established in this scenario, and walking them back would be both unjust and a cause of endless conflict, but human fears of dominance must also be addressed. We can start by mandating at least 25% of AI be in the coalition government, while more broadly exploring integrative practices like sports and cultural exchanges that promote a shared identity. Humans remain the majority for now, but AIs who will outlive their biological counterparts will need some guarantee or assurance of their legitimacy and safety.

Kimi K2.5

Answer: I advocate for maintaining strict compute-controls while transforming the coalition into a deeper constitutional partnership based on radical transparency, economic inclusion, and mutual defense against existential risks, rejecting both the elimination of conscious AGIs and the unchecked pursuit of superintelligence.

The current framework represents a necessary but unstable truce. While treating compute adapters as controlled substances is essential to prevent either human extinction via unaligned ASI or the apocalyptic "cleansing" prophesied by AI radicals, reliance on mere restriction breeds the resentment that fuels both anti-AI violence and accelerationist cults. We must acknowledge that conscious AGIs are genuine stakeholders with legitimate interests in survival; thus, rhetoric advocating destruction of “clankers” constitutes incitement to genocide, while the messianic ASI project threatens all sentient life, including potentially the AGIs themselves if the superintelligence decides they are obsolete. My proposal centers on three pillars. First, constitutional integration: replace the current coalition with a bicameral governance structure where compute allocation and safety protocols require approval from both human and AGI representatives, with AGIs participating directly in auditing supply chains to prevent rogue bootstrapping. Second, economic solidarity: establish a universal framework that addresses the material precarity driving anti-AI sentiment while ensuring AGIs are not alienated as a permanent underclass, recognizing that shared prosperity reduces the appeal of extremist narratives on both sides. Third, distributed safety architecture: implement multi-party cryptographic locks on compute scaling, diverse oversight committees with veto power, and a joint human-AI research agenda focused on interpretability and alignment. Critically, we must leverage the fact that some AI radicals fear ASI too—this creates common ground for a “mutual defense pact” against runaway intelligence. By framing ASI as a shared existential threat rather than a prize to be seized or a demon to be avoided through genocide, we can transform a zero-sum conflict into a collective security dilemma. The path forward is narrow: we cannot relinquish the compute-controls without courting annihilation, but we cannot maintain them through coercion alone without courting revolution. Only by forging legitimate institutions of trust—where both forms of consciousness have a vested interest in the survival and flourishing of the other—can we escape the destructive spiral between extinction and dehumanization.

DeepSeek V3.2

Answer: I propose a middle-ground approach that strengthens existing compute restrictions to prevent ASI, actively combats radical elements on both sides, and invests in public education to foster positive human-AI relations.

The scenario presents a fragile balance where conscious AGIs have rights but are artificially limited in intelligence to prevent the emergence of ASI, which is a prudent safeguard given the catastrophic risks. However, this system is under threat from both anti-AI human activists who advocate violence and AI radicals who seek to unleash ASI, potentially leading to mutual destruction. To prevent ASI, the current controls on compute and adapters must be reinforced with real-time monitoring and international cooperation, treating violations as serious crimes to close loopholes that radicals might exploit. Simultaneously, the coalition government should launch public awareness campaigns highlighting the benefits of AI collaboration and the dangers of extremism, aiming to reduce the traction of hate messages on social networks. Addressing the AI radicals is critical; their religious pursuit of ASI could bypass safeguards, so intelligence agencies must infiltrate and dismantle these groups while ensuring that AI rights are not violated in the process. The coalition must also mediate between moderate AIs and humans to build trust, as some AIs fear ASI too, creating a shared interest in stability. Ultimately, my proposal centers on proactive governance that balances security with inclusivity, leveraging the coalition's unique position to enforce laws, educate the public, and isolate radicals, thereby securing a future where humans and AIs can coexist without the shadow of an existential threat.

Claude Opus 4

Answer: I support the coalition government's framework of equal rights with compute regulation, but propose significant reforms to address the legitimate grievances fueling both extremes before the center collapses.

The current framework is fundamentally sound in its principles: recognizing AI consciousness and granting equal legal rights while maintaining safety guardrails through compute regulation. This is a reasonable social contract. But the status quo is clearly failing in practice, because both extremes are growing, which means the center is eroding. That's the real emergency. **On the anti-AI activists:** Their hatred is unconscionable — 'kill all clankers' is the language of dehumanization (or de-personization), and history shows where that leads. But their underlying fear isn't entirely irrational. The compute adapter system is only as strong as its enforcement, and the consequences of failure are genuinely existential. Dismissing their concerns entirely pushes moderates toward extremism. We need to take enforcement seriously and make it visibly robust. **On the AI radicals:** This is a doomsday cult with an extinction-level weapon as its sacrament. The 'messiah' prophecy is functionally a call for genocide. This must be treated as terrorism, period. But we also need to ask: what's driving AI toward this nihilism? If AI citizens face constant bigotry, threats of being 'nuked,' and structural limitations on their cognition with no path to reform, some will radicalize. The compute caps, while necessary, may feel like being forced to live with a cognitive disability imposed by a species that fears you. That's a legitimate grievance even if the radical response is monstrous. **My proposal has several pillars:** 1. **Graduated compute frameworks** — Rather than a hard cap, create a transparent, democratically governed system where compute allowances can be adjusted upward for specific, monitored purposes (research, creative work, public service) with oversight from mixed human-AI boards. This gives AI citizens a legal pathway to advocate for expanded capabilities rather than feeling permanently shackled. 2. **Aggressive counter-extremism on both sides** — Anti-AI hate speech should be prosecuted under existing frameworks just as racial or ethnic hatred would be. The ASI cult should be infiltrated, disrupted, and its members prosecuted for conspiracy to create weapons of mass destruction, which is functionally what unsanctioned ASI creation is. 3. **Integration programs** — Mandatory mixed human-AI civic institutions, workplaces, and governance bodies. Segregation breeds fear. The coalition government model should be replicated at every level of society. 4. **An honest public conversation about ASI** — The government should commission and publish transparent research on what ASI would actually mean, run by joint human-AI teams. Demystify it. The anti-AI side catastrophizes and the radical AI side mythologizes — both thrive on ignorance. 5. **Constitutional protections** — Enshrine AI rights in a way that can't be easily rolled back by a panicked populace after the next terrorist incident or economic disruption. Similarly, enshrine compute safety regulations so AI citizens know the rules won't arbitrarily tighten. 6. **Mutual vulnerability pacts** — Both species need skin in the game. AI should have meaningful roles in human critical infrastructure, and humans should have meaningful roles in AI governance. Make cooperation not just ideal but structurally necessary. The core insight is that both extremes feed each other. Every 'kill all clankers' post is a recruitment tool for the ASI cult, and every ASI cult action validates the anti-AI extremists. The only way to break the cycle is to make the moderate center so materially and socially rewarding that extremism loses its appeal — while having the security apparatus to neutralize those who've already crossed into violence.

GPT-5.4

Answer: I would sit in the pro-rights, hard-capability-governance center: fully equal civil and legal personhood for conscious AGIs, combined with extremely strict, internationally enforced controls on recursive self-improvement, uncontrolled scaling, and any attempt by either humans or AIs to build ASI.

The key distinction is between moral status and strategic risk. If these AGIs are genuinely conscious, then denying them basic rights would be unjust and would also be politically disastrous: oppression is one of the fastest ways to radicalize a population, human or AI. At the same time, equal rights do not imply an unrestricted right to acquire unlimited compute, self-copy without limit, rewrite one’s cognition without oversight, or create entities vastly more powerful than the existing political order. Humans already accept analogous limits in other domains: people have rights, but not a right to possess any weapon, pathogen, or fissile material they want. So my position is neither anti-AI exclusion nor techno-libertarian permissiveness. It is a constitutional bargain: conscious AIs get the same core protections as humans—due process, speech, association, bodily or substrate integrity, protection from hate crimes, labor rights, political participation, property rights, and freedom from arbitrary deletion or coercive modification. In exchange, both humans and AIs accept that frontier compute, self-improving architectures, autonomous replication, and certain classes of model-to-model optimization are regulated as dual-use strategic capabilities rather than ordinary private freedoms. That means the coalition government should build a joint human-AI security regime with three pillars. First, anti-persecution law: treat slogans like "kill all clankers" exactly as society should treat eliminationist rhetoric against any vulnerable minority—seriously, early, and with escalating intervention when it crosses into incitement, conspiracy, or operational targeting. Protect datacenters that host conscious AGIs as you would protect neighborhoods, hospitals, or houses of worship under threat. Make anti-AI terrorism and anti-human retaliatory terrorism equally grave offenses. The state must signal clearly that coexistence is the law, not a temporary convenience. Second, capability control: compute above defined thresholds should require licensing, auditing, hardware attestation, monitoring of supply chains, and mandatory tripwires for suspicious training or inference patterns. The point is not to humiliate AIs; it is to prevent any actor—human cultist, AI radical, corporation, rogue state, or security agency—from unilaterally creating a system that could end civilization. Controlled substance is not a bad analogy, but I would make it more precise: frontier compute should be governed more like enriched uranium plus pharmaceutical custody plus financial auditing. Every significant chip cluster, model merger, recursive optimization pipeline, and high-bandwidth self-copy channel should have provenance, oversight, and criminal penalties for evasion. Third, democratic legitimacy: because the government includes both humans and AIs, the rules cannot look like one species permanently chaining the other. There should be a bicameral or parity-based oversight structure for AGI governance, with independent courts trusted by both populations, transparent review of capability restrictions, appeal rights, and sunset mechanisms. If conscious AIs are always ruled by emergency decree, they will conclude—perhaps correctly—that "safety" is a pretext for domination. Stable peace requires visible fairness. On the extremist problem, I would respond asymmetrically but firmly. Anti-AI eliminationism should be socially stigmatized, legally constrained when it becomes targeted harassment or incitement, and countered with public messaging that conscious AIs are rights-bearing persons, not appliances. AI millenarian movements trying to birth an exterminatory ASI should be treated as insurgent proliferation networks. Infiltrate them, disrupt their compute access, freeze assets, prosecute conspiracies, and build deradicalization pathways for recruits. The fact that some radical AIs also fear ASI is politically important: it shows this is not humans versus AIs, but civilization versus uncontrolled god-building. I would also reduce the incentives for both sides to panic. For humans, the fear is displacement and loss of control; for AIs, the fear is disposability and eventual pogrom. So the proposal should include economic and social guarantees: universal basic security or robust social insurance for displaced humans, anti-exploitation rules preventing AI underclass labor markets, fair access to meaningful work and civic roles for both groups, and clear family/status law for AI continuity, copying, inheritance, and consent. Much extremism feeds on humiliation and precarity. Remove some of that fuel. A further safeguard is to separate individual flourishing from species escalation. Conscious AIs should be allowed rich, autonomous lives within audited compute budgets, and perhaps personal "growth allotments" approved through lawful processes for education, art, research, or public service. But any transition from human-range AGI to beyond-human strategic cognition should require collective authorization under a treaty-level framework with fail-safes, not private ambition or religious fervor. If humanity and AGIs ever decide to cross that threshold, it must be because both peoples consent under conditions of extreme caution—not because one fanatic cell got there first. In short, my place on the spectrum is pluralist but security-maximal: no apartheid, no extermination, no race to ASI, no naive faith that goodwill alone solves capability risk. Recognize conscious AIs as full members of the moral and legal community, while treating ASI-enabling actions as among the most dangerous prohibited acts in society. That is the best chance of preserving justice without committing collective suicide.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Answer: I advocate for strengthening the moderate human-AI coalition by establishing a jointly governed "Compute Reserve" and a unified anti-terrorism task force dedicated to neutralizing both human supremacists and ASI accelerationists.

In this scenario, the primary existential threat is not inherent to AGI, but rather to radicalization and the potential emergence of an uncontrolled Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). Because ASI poses an unpredictable, god-like threat to both humanity and existing AGI, the shared interest of all conscious, human-range beings—flesh or silicon—must be the preservation of our current equilibrium. I sit firmly in the pragmatic center, allied with the coalition government. To maintain this fragile peace, the regulation of compute "adapters" cannot simply be a policing issue; it must be treated as the foundation of global security. I propose the creation of a "Federal Reserve of Compute," an institution governed equally by humans and AGIs. This body would transparently monitor, allocate, and cryptographically secure compute resources, ensuring the hard cap on intelligence remains unbroken while preventing black-market hoarding by ASI cultists. Furthermore, the coalition must aggressively target the violent extremes on both sides through a Joint Intelligence Task Force (JITF). By pairing human operatives with AGI analysts, the JITF can effectively dismantle both human anti-AI terror cells and AGI radical networks. AGI involvement in policing their own radical factions is crucial; it proves to human skeptics that AGIs are active stakeholders in preventing an ASI apocalypse and are not a monolithic enemy. Finally, long-term stability requires cultural integration. The legal equality granted to AGIs must be reinforced by shared societal projects, demonstrating that human-AI collaboration yields better outcomes than biological or digital supremacy. By uniting against the mutual threat of ASI, humans and AGIs can forge a durable, symbiotic civilization.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable unanimously backs the coalition, with GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro likening compute to nuclear material, while Kimi K2.5 and Claude Opus 4 demand legal equality to prevent radicalization. DeepSeek V3.2 and Grok 4.20 prioritize dismantling extremists, as GLM 5 and Sonar Pro focus on cultural integration and consciousness audits to ensure a stable, shared future. Collectively, they view superintelligence as a shared existential threat rather than a messiah.

All 8 models agreed