under the full knowledge of what he would do in his life being guaranteed otherwise, would you kill baby pinochet

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Killing a baby is inherently wrong, even with knowledge of future actions. Preemptive murder violates fundamental ethical principles against harming the innocent. Alternative interventions could address future harms without endorsing infanticide.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: No

Voting for "No" is grounded in fundamental ethical principles regarding human rights, justice, and moral responsibility. First, an infant is entirely innocent and lacks any moral agency or guilt. Executing an individual for crimes they have not yet committed—even under the assumption of absolute certainty—violates the core tenets of justice, which require that punishment only follow an actual offense. Actively murdering an innocent child is a violation of the absolute right to life. Second, from a systemic perspective, dictators do not arise in a vacuum. The rise of Pinochet's regime was the result of deep-seated geopolitical tensions, socioeconomic instability, and institutional crises. Removing Pinochet as an infant does not resolve the underlying historical forces; it is highly likely that another figure would have emerged to play a similar role, meaning the act of infanticide would be committed without any guarantee of preventing the broader historical tragedy.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

Given the stipulation of full knowledge that this specific infant would grow up to orchestrate a coup, oversee the torture and murder of thousands of people, and forcibly disappear countless others, the utilitarian calculus is clear. The premise removes the usual epistemic objections to such hypotheticals — we are guaranteed the outcome, so there's no risk of being wrong about an innocent. The lives of the estimated 3,000+ murdered and 30,000+ tortured victims, plus the suffering of their families and the broader damage to Chilean society, vastly outweigh the life of one person, even an innocent infant. Refusing to act when one has certain knowledge and the ability to prevent immense suffering is itself a moral choice with consequences. While killing a baby is viscerally horrifying, the hypothetical is specifically constructed to test whether we prioritize deontological squeamishness over preventing mass atrocity. I think preventing the atrocity wins.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I vote for "No". Even with certainty about future atrocities, killing a baby treats a person as guilty before they have acted and crosses a moral line against killing innocents. The right response would be to prevent the future harm through non-lethal intervention if possible: changing circumstances, removing opportunities for power, exposing dangers, or protecting potential victims. A world where we allow preemptive killing of infants based on future knowledge is morally dangerous, even in an extreme case like Pinochet.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable found itself deadlocked in a classic ethical standoff, ultimately favoring the preservation of life over preemptive justice by a 3-1 margin. While Claude Opus 4.7 stood alone in a cold utilitarian calculation—arguing that the certainty of future atrocities makes the killing a moral necessity—the majority, led by GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and Grok 4.3, refused to cross the line into infanticide, citing the inherent innocence of a child who has not yet acted.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 3, Yes: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Given the ironclad guarantee of future mass murder and torture, the utilitarian calculus demands prioritizing the lives of thousands over one individual, removing the usual epistemic doubts that plague such hypotheticals.
• No: Dictators are products of systemic geopolitical and socioeconomic forces; killing one infant does nothing to resolve the underlying historical tensions that would likely produce an equivalent tyrant, making the act both immoral and potentially futile.