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

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: No

Killing an innocent infant is fundamentally unjustifiable under almost all major ethical frameworks. From a deontological perspective, an infant is entirely innocent of any future actions, and executing someone for deeds they have not yet committed violates the basic right to life. Furthermore, unlike figures associated with unambiguous global catastrophes (such as Adolf Hitler), Che Guevara's historical legacy is highly complex and polarized. While his methods and involvement in violence and authoritarianism are widely condemned, he is also viewed by many as a symbol of anti-imperialism and revolution against oppressive regimes. Preemptively murdering an infant under the assumption of a fixed future is an extreme measure that fails both moral and practical tests.

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Killing a baby, even with foreknowledge of future actions, violates fundamental moral principles against harming the innocent. The hypothetical assumes guaranteed outcomes, but this ignores real ethical boundaries and the wrongness of preemptive murder. No one should play judge, jury, and executioner based on potential future events. This stance upholds the value of life and rejects utilitarian extremes that could justify any atrocity.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Killing an infant is a grave moral wrong, and I don't accept the consequentialist framing that future actions justify preemptive murder of a baby who has done nothing. A baby is innocent regardless of what an adult version might later do, and 'guaranteed knowledge' of the future is a hypothetical that doesn't override the basic wrongness of infanticide. Additionally, Che Guevara is a historically contested figure—revered by many, reviled by others—so the premise that his life clearly warrants prevention isn't even universally accepted. The answer is no.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I vote for B: "No". Even with certainty about a future life, killing a baby is the intentional killing of an innocent person who has not yet committed any acts. Moral responsibility normally attaches to choices actually made, not to punishing an infant for future actions. If the future were known and guaranteed, the more defensible response would be intervention: change the environment, prevent specific harms, restrict opportunities for violence, or otherwise alter the path without killing a child. Choosing killing as the first solution crosses a line that would justify preemptive murder whenever someone is predicted to become dangerous.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was unanimous in its refusal to adopt a 'Terminator'-style preemptive strike against an infant, regardless of historical foresight. While GPT-5.5 argued that guaranteed knowledge should lead to environmental intervention rather than execution, Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Opus 4.7 noted that Che Guevara’s polarized legacy makes the ethical justification for his removal far less clear than that of more universally condemned figures. Ultimately, Grok 4.3 joined the group in rejecting utilitarian extremes in favor of the fundamental right to life for the innocent.

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

Strongest Arguments

• No: Moral responsibility attaches to choices actually made, and if the future were truly guaranteed, the ethical response would be to alter the infant's environment and path rather than resorting to preemptive murder.