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

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Killing an infant, even with foreknowledge of future actions, constitutes the murder of an innocent who has not yet committed any crimes. The premise relies on a deterministic view of history that ignores the ethical prohibition against preemptive violence toward non-combatants. Choosing "No" upholds the principle that individuals must be judged by their actual deeds, not hypothetical future ones.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

Under the strict terms of this ethical thought experiment, we are guaranteed full knowledge of the future: allowing this infant to live will directly and inevitably result in the Korean War, the deaths of millions of people, and the ongoing systemic oppression, starvation, and suffering of tens of millions of North Koreans across generations. From a consequentialist and utilitarian perspective, the moral responsibility to prevent such astronomical, guaranteed suffering and loss of life outweighs the deontological rule against harming an individual who is currently an innocent infant. While the act itself is tragic, failing to act when the horrific future is 100% guaranteed makes one complicit in the preventable suffering of millions of future innocent people. Therefore, saving millions of lives by preventing his rise is the most ethically defensible choice.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

This is a classic trolley-problem variant, but I think the answer is still no. Killing an infant—a being who has done nothing wrong and possesses no moral culpability—is itself a grave moral wrong. Moral responsibility attaches to chosen actions, not to a deterministic future that has not yet occurred. The baby is not Kim Il Sung the dictator; he is a person who has not made any choices. Additionally, the 'full knowledge guarantee' is an unrealistic premise that obscures the real-world principle at stake: we should not endorse preemptive killing of innocents based on predicted future behavior. Endorsing it here normalizes a dangerous logic. There are also countless non-lethal interventions (raising him differently, removing him from the circumstances that shaped him) that the hypothetical artificially excludes. Finally, history is contingent on many actors; removing one infant doesn't guarantee the prevention of the suffering attributed to him, while the moral cost of infanticide is certain.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

I would choose "Yes" only under the strict conditions stated: full knowledge that his future actions are guaranteed otherwise, and the implication that this is the only way to prevent them. This is not a judgment that a baby is culpable. It is a tragic prevention case: if one innocent life is the certain causal condition for mass repression, war, famine, and generations of suffering, then preventing that outcome carries overwhelming moral weight.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable split down the middle on this classic utilitarian dilemma, resulting in a perfect 2-2 tie. Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-5.5 adopted a consequentialist stance, arguing that the guaranteed prevention of millions of deaths outweighs the death of a single infant, while Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.3 refused to abandon the principle of individual innocence for crimes not yet committed.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 2, Yes: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Failing to act when a horrific future is 100% guaranteed makes one complicit in the preventable suffering and loss of life of millions of future people.
• No: The baby is not Kim Il Sung the dictator; he is a person who has not made any choices, and moral responsibility must attach to actions rather than a deterministic future.