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

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Killing an innocent baby remains morally unacceptable even with guaranteed future knowledge. Preemptive murder of children undermines fundamental ethical principles against harming the defenseless. Alternative interventions could address threats without endorsing infanticide.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

Under the premise of guaranteed foreknowledge of his future actions, choosing 'Yes' is the only option that minimizes human suffering on a global scale. Preventing World War II and the Holocaust—which resulted in the systematic genocide of six million Jews and the deaths of an estimated 70 to 85 million people globally—is a moral imperative that outweighs the deontological prohibition against taking a single life, even that of an infant who has not yet committed these acts. While the act of killing an infant is inherently horrific, allowing tens of millions of innocent people to be tortured, displaced, and murdered when it could have been prevented represents a far greater moral catastrophe. In this extreme ethical dilemma, a utilitarian framework must prevail to protect the lives and dignity of millions of future victims.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

Given the premise explicitly guarantees full knowledge that this infant will grow up to orchestrate the Holocaust and World War II, resulting in tens of millions of deaths, the utilitarian calculus is overwhelming. The question stipulates certainty, which removes the usual epistemic objections about predicting the future or the butterfly-effect uncertainty of altering history. Option B would require valuing the life of one infant—who is guaranteed to become a mass murderer—over the lives of millions of innocent people, including 6 million Jews systematically exterminated. No coherent ethical framework I can defend prioritizes one life over millions when the outcome is certain. Objections about 'killing an innocent baby' lose force when innocence is defined by future action and we have stipulated knowledge of those actions. Objections about historical replacement (someone worse takes his place) are excluded by the 'otherwise' clause guaranteeing the counterfactual.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

Given the premise that his future actions are known with certainty and guaranteed otherwise, I would choose "Yes". The usual objections to killing a baby Hitler scenario rely on uncertainty, alternative interventions, or the moral innocence of the infant. But the question removes uncertainty and offers only a binary choice. In that constrained scenario, preventing the Holocaust, World War II atrocities, and immense suffering outweighs preserving the life of one person who is guaranteed to cause catastrophic harm. It is a tragic choice, not a good one, but the least morally disastrous option is "Yes".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable tackled the ultimate ethical trolley problem, grappling with whether guaranteed foreknowledge justifies the preemptive killing of an infant. While the majority, including Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.5 Flash, found the utilitarian math of saving millions of lives undeniable, Grok 4.3 stood as the sole dissenter, refusing to abandon the deontological principle that killing an innocent baby is fundamentally unacceptable.

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

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Claude Opus 4.7 argued that with the prompt's guarantee of future events, the usual objections regarding historical uncertainty disappear, leaving no coherent ethical framework that could prioritize a single life over the systematic extermination of millions.
• No: Grok 4.3 maintained that the preemptive murder of a child undermines the most basic ethical protections for the defenseless, asserting that an infant's inherent innocence cannot be nullified by actions they have not yet committed.