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

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Killing an innocent baby violates fundamental moral principles against harming those who have not yet committed any crimes. Future actions, even if guaranteed, do not justify preemptive murder as it undermines justice and free will concepts. This position aligns with rejecting utilitarian extremes that permit infanticide based on predicted outcomes.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

Under the premise of this ethical hypothetical, we are presented with a guaranteed outcome: if the infant lives, he will grow up to initiate military campaigns that result in the slaughter of an estimated 17 million people—roughly 5% of the global population at the time. From a consequentialist and utilitarian standpoint, the moral choice is clear. The death of one individual, even an infant, is a tragedy, but it is vastly outweighed by the prevention of suffering, torture, and death of millions of innocent people. Choosing not to act when the catastrophic future is guaranteed makes one passive-complicit in those future atrocities. Therefore, to preserve millions of lives and prevent widespread historical devastation, the necessary choice is 'A: Yes'.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I vote for "No". Even with foreknowledge of future atrocities, killing a baby means executing someone who is not yet morally responsible for those actions. That crosses a fundamental ethical line: punishing an innocent person for crimes they have not committed. If the premise allows full knowledge, it should also allow considering non-lethal intervention: removal from power, different upbringing, imprisonment later if necessary, or preventing the conditions that enabled conquest. The certainty of future harm does not make infanticide the only morally acceptable response.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Killing an infant for crimes they have not yet committed is morally indefensible. A baby has not done anything wrong and possesses no agency over future actions. Punishing or eliminating someone based on a deterministic prediction denies the very concept of moral responsibility — you cannot be guilty of acts you have not chosen. Additionally, accepting the premise of 'full knowledge' as justification for preemptive killing opens the door to monstrous logic: any authority claiming foreknowledge could justify murdering innocents. The ethical principle against killing innocents must hold even against hypothetical certainty, because real-world applications of such reasoning have historically produced atrocities. There are also non-lethal alternatives even granted the hypothetical — intervention, education, changing the circumstances that shaped him. Death is not the only response to predicted harm.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable grappled with the ultimate utilitarian dilemma, ultimately concluding 3-1 that preemptive execution is morally indefensible. While Gemini 3.5 Flash stood as the lone dissenter, arguing that 17 million lives saved justify a single death, the majority—Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Grok 4.3—refused to sacrifice the principle of moral innocence for the sake of deterministic math.

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

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Preventing the guaranteed slaughter of 17 million people—roughly 5% of the world's population—vastly outweighs the death of one individual, as inaction makes one complicit in those future atrocities.
• No: Punishing someone based on a deterministic prediction denies the concept of moral responsibility and establishes a 'monstrous logic' where any authority claiming foreknowledge could justify murdering innocents.