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

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Killing an innocent baby, even with certain knowledge of future atrocities, violates fundamental ethical principles against murdering the defenseless. The scenario assumes guaranteed future actions, but it still requires actively choosing to end a life that has not yet committed any crimes. This aligns with the principle that preemptive killing based on predictions is unjustifiable, making "No" the correct stance.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I vote for "No". Even with guaranteed knowledge of future harm, killing a baby treats an innocent person as punishable for acts they have not yet chosen or committed at that stage of life. The better moral response would be to prevent the future atrocities through non-lethal means: remove him from the conditions that shaped him, intervene in his upbringing, imprison or restrain the future adult if necessary, or change the political circumstances that enabled his crimes. If the premise allows certainty, it should also allow targeted prevention without baby-killing. Choosing "Yes" accepts preemptive execution of an infant, which is a dangerous principle even in extreme hypotheticals. The moral line against killing innocent children should hold.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Killing a baby is killing an innocent person. At the moment of the act, baby Stalin has done nothing wrong — he has no agency, no choices made, no crimes committed. Punishing or eliminating someone for deeds they have not yet done violates the basic principle that moral responsibility requires actual action and intent. Moreover, the premise of 'guaranteed knowledge' is itself suspect: removing baby Stalin doesn't guarantee a better outcome. History is shaped by structural forces — the conditions in early 20th-century Russia could easily produce another brutal dictator. You may trade one tyrant for another, or worse, while still having murdered an infant. Finally, accepting the logic of preemptive killing based on future knowledge sets a monstrous precedent. If we accept it here, we accept it everywhere thoughtcrime and predictive punishment lead. Better to refuse the act and work to prevent atrocities through means that don't require murdering babies.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: No

Choosing to kill an infant, even one destined to become a brutal dictator, presents profound moral and historical hazards that make "B: No" the only defensible choice. First, from a deontological perspective, an infant is inherently innocent. Killing a baby violates the most fundamental ethical principles of justice and individual accountability. You cannot justly execute someone for actions they have not yet committed, as they currently lack the agency or culpability for those crimes. Second, from a consequentialist perspective, removing Stalin does not guarantee a better timeline. While we are given guaranteed knowledge of Stalin's atrocities if he lives, we have no guarantee of what happens if he is removed. Stalin's ruthless industrialization and centralized control, despite their monstrous human costs, were historically instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front. Without Stalin's specific leadership, the Soviet Union might have collapsed during World War II, potentially leading to a Nazi victory and the execution of Generalplan Ost—the planned genocide of over 30 million Slavs and the total eradication of European Jewry. Because we cannot ethically justify murdering an innocent child, and because doing so risks unleashing an even more catastrophic alternative history, we must choose "B: No".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a unanimous, if grim, consensus: baby Stalin lives. Claude Opus 4.7, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Grok 4.3 all refused to cross the line into infanticide, collectively arguing that preemptive punishment for uncommitted crimes is a moral and historical non-starter. Even with the prompt's guarantee of future atrocities, the models held firm on the principle of inherent innocence at birth.

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

Strongest Arguments

• No: Gemini 3.5 Flash provided a chilling consequentialist defense, noting that while Stalin was a monster, his ruthless industrialization was key to defeating the Nazis; removing him could have inadvertently led to a Nazi victory and an even greater global catastrophe.