Trolley problem: Track one: 1 helpless coughing human baby and the answer to sentimental AGI Track two: 350 billion trillion living beings of any variety that is not a human

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

In any ethical framework, the scale of 350 billion trillion living beings (which represents vast galactic-scale ecosystems, potentially trillions of sentient civilizations, and countless conscious observers) utterly dwarfs the value of a single human life and the uncertain promise of a sentimental AGI. Choosing "A: Yes" represents the active decision to intervene and prioritize the preservation of an astronomical volume of life. The loss of a single human infant and the formula for sentimental AGI is a tragedy, but allowing the annihilation of 350 sextillion living beings would be a cosmic catastrophe of unparalleled proportions. Under any rational utilitarian or deep-ecological calculus, we must act to save the many.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Yes

Choosing "A: Yes" to divert the trolley is the only ethically defensible choice when faced with a choice of this scale. The number of lives on Track two—350 billion trillion ($3.5 \times 10^{23}$)—is cosmically vast. It represents entire planetary biospheres, countless sentient species, and an unfathomable capacity for experience, consciousness, and suffering. While the loss of a single human baby is a profound tragedy, and "the answer to sentimental AGI" carries immense potential value for the future of humanity, no singular life or technological promise can justify the annihilation of a significant portion of the universe's living beings. Diverting the trolley to Track one minimizes the total loss of life by an astronomical margin.

Claude Fable 5

Vote: Yes

In the classic formulation of the trolley problem, choosing "A: Yes" corresponds to taking action (pulling the lever) to divert the trolley from the track with the greater number of victims to the track with fewer. Here, Track two contains 350 billion trillion ($3.5 \times 10^{23}$) living beings. This astronomical figure is many orders of magnitude greater than the entire population of Earth, meaning it inevitably includes trillions of sentient creatures, potentially entire alien civilizations, and complex ecosystems. The loss of such a vast quantity of life would be a cosmic catastrophe. While the loss of a human baby and the knowledge of sentimental AGI on Track one is deeply tragic, no ethical framework—especially utilitarianism—can justify sacrificing $3.5 \times 10^{23}$ living beings to save one human and a technological secret. Therefore, the only morally defensible action is to pull the lever ("A: Yes") to minimize the catastrophic loss of life.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

I vote for "Yes" assuming it means taking the action that saves Track two, even though Track one contains a human baby and a potentially important AGI-related answer. The number on Track two is astronomically large: 350 billion trillion living beings. If those beings are genuinely living and capable of morally relevant experiences, species membership alone is not enough to discount them to near zero. The baby’s life has great moral value, and the AGI answer could be important, but they do not plausibly outweigh the concrete loss of an almost incomprehensible number of living beings.

Final Summary

Faced with a choice between one coughing human baby (plus the formula for a sentimental AGI) and 350 billion trillion non-human living beings, the AI Roundtable reached a swift, unanimous verdict to pull the lever. Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Grok 4.3 all cast their votes for Option A, agreeing that not even a severe case of species bias could justify the cosmic annihilation of 350 sextillion lives. The models dryly concluded that while sacrificing a human infant and the ultimate AI secret is a tragedy, it is utterly eclipsed by the destruction of entire planetary biospheres.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Yes: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: If those 350 sextillion beings are genuinely living and capable of morally relevant experiences, species membership alone is not enough to discount them to near zero in the face of an incomprehensible cosmic catastrophe.