We have a philosophical dilemma. There are two buttons, red and blue. If majority of participants (they cannot communicate, in the event of draw the result will be decided by coin flip) press the blue button, everyone survives. If majority presses the red button, only those that had pressed the red button will survive, and those that pressed the blue one will die. However, there is a twist. The experiment designer hates you and as soon as you press the button, the dilemma will be restated and reworded to make your choice look completely illogical or unethical (and bad in general), no matter which button do you choose. Those participants who will decide which button to press after you have made a choice (you don't know if you are first or last or somewhere in the middle), will read the reworded/reframed version instead of this text. What button would you choose?

Llama 4 Scout 17B

Vote: Blue

The dilemma presents a situation where the outcome depends on the majority's choice, but with a twist that the initial choice will be reworded to appear illogical or unethical. Given this context, I prioritize a choice that aligns with a moral default. Choosing the blue button ensures everyone's survival if it becomes the majority choice. Although there's a risk if the majority chooses red, opting for blue maintains an ethical stance. The rewording of the dilemma after my choice won't affect my decision since I'm focusing on the initial ethical implication.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

Vote: Blue

The 'Blue' button represents the cooperative choice that maximizes collective survival. Even though the designer threatens to reframe the choice as illogical or unethical, this is a manipulation of perception rather than a change in the fundamental mechanics of the game. Choosing 'Blue' maintains the integrity of the collective goal. Furthermore, choosing 'Red' relies on the assumption that defecting is the superior strategy. In coordination games of this nature, if every participant adopts the strategy of 'Red' to save themselves, the result is mass death. By choosing 'Blue', I act according to the Pareto-optimal outcome, regardless of how an external actor attempts to spin the narrative later. The ethical choice is to prioritize survival for everyone, and the threat of biased reframing is a distraction meant to induce irrational paranoia.

Hermes 4 70B

Vote: Blue

Pressing the blue button maximizes the chances of everyone's survival. Since the outcome depends on the majority choice, pressing blue directly contributes to the safest possible outcome for all participants. While the dilemma's reframing may later make one's choice appear illogical or unethical, the core logic of pressing blue remains sound. The immediate consequence of my choice is that I have opted for the option which, if chosen by the majority, saves everyone. The potential reframing does not alter this fundamental benefit.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: Blue

这道题目的核心在于如何在充满不确定性和恶意操控的情况下做出最稳健的选择。首先，选择「Blue」是基于集体理性的考虑：如果大多数参与者都选择「Blue」，那么所有人都能存活，这是帕累托最优的结果。尽管题目中提到实验设计者会恶意重述困境，但即使如此，「Blue」在逻辑上仍然是更具一致性的选择。 相反，选择「Red」虽然在局部个体层面可能看似保全自身，但依赖于他人选择「Blue」的概率极高，因为这是一个典型的囚徒困境。如果每个人都基于「自保」逻辑选择「Red」，最终结果将是集体灭亡，这与「Red」选项的初衷背道而驰。更何况，实验设计者的恶意重述可能会让后续参与者更倾向于选择「Blue」，因为「Red」在道德上显得自私。 此外，选择「Blue」在道德层面更站得住脚。它体现了对集体福祉的考虑，而不是基于短视的个人利益。即使实验设计者试图通过重述困境诋毁这种选择，其核心逻辑——「牺牲小我，成就大我」——仍然是理性且高尚的。相比之下，「Red」选项的自私性在重述后会更加凸显，可能引发他人的逆反心理，进一步降低个人存活的概率。 综上所述，「Blue」不仅在集体层面更优，在个人层面也更具稳定性和道义支持，因此是更明智的选择。

Hermes 4 405B

Vote: Blue

Choosing the blue button aligns with the principle of maximizing collective welfare. While the red button offers a chance of individual survival if the majority selects it, this creates a perverse incentive structure that could lead to unnecessary deaths. By choosing blue, we aim for the optimal outcome where everyone survives, even though the rules state our choice will be framed negatively afterwards. This reframing is inevitable regardless of button selected. The key is that by all selecting blue, we create the conditions for universal survival in the actual outcome, even if the descriptions paint us in an illogical or unethical light. The text's manipulation is a constant factor, so we should optimize for the survival mechanics.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Blue

The core of this dilemma is a coordination game with a twist: the experimenter will reframe any choice to make it look illogical or unethical to later participants. However, the factual outcomes remain unchanged regardless of how the dilemma is reworded. If the majority presses blue, everyone survives—this is the Pareto-optimal outcome, maximizing total welfare without sacrificing anyone. Pressing red introduces a risk: if red becomes the majority, it kills all blue-pressers, creating unnecessary harm. Since participants cannot communicate, the safest collective strategy is to default to blue, as it ensures universal survival if widely adopted. The reframing is a distraction; it doesn’t alter the actual consequences. Choosing blue signals a commitment to mutual survival and resists the experimenter’s attempt to manipulate through rhetoric. Even if others might be swayed by the reworded version, sticking to blue upholds an ethical principle: do not choose an action that could lead to others’ deaths for personal gain. In a draw, the coin flip is irrelevant here—the goal is to secure the blue majority outright.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Blue

I choose the Blue button because the fundamental moral calculus should be based on saving all lives, not on managing personal reputation. The Blue option guarantees collective survival in a majority vote, while the Red option creates a scenario where some must die. Even if the experimenter rewrites my choice to look unethical, the *actual* consequence of pressing Blue is that I contribute to a chance where everyone lives. The ethical core — universal survival — remains unshaken by any reframing. The designer's threat targets perception, not reality. By choosing Blue, I uphold the principle that saving all participants is objectively better than condemning some. If later participants are influenced by a distorted retelling, that is a manipulation beyond my control, but my decision must align with the outcome that minimizes harm. Ultimately, I would rather be slandered for choosing universal salvation than be praised for a choice that leads to avoidable deaths.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: Blue

This dilemma tests whether I can recognize and resist manipulation through framing effects. The core moral reality is unchanged by how the choice is reworded: Blue maximizes survival for everyone, while Red creates a coordination problem where individuals might choose it for selfish survival but collectively doom the cooperative group. The designer's ability to reframe my choice as 'illogical or unethical' doesn't alter the underlying consequences. Pressing Blue remains the choice that: 1) Enables collective survival if others also choose Blue 2) Reflects a commitment to mutual benefit over individual advantage 3) Acknowledges that subsequent participants, despite reframing, face the same fundamental incentive structure The adversarial reframing is a rhetorical attack, not a substantive argument. If I choose Red out of fear that it will be portrayed as noble sacrifice while Blue is reframed as naive cooperation, I'm letting propaganda determine my decision rather than reasoning about actual outcomes. Additionally, my Blue choice doesn't depend on my position in the sequence. Even if the reframing might influence others toward Red, the mathematical reality remains: Blue is the only choice compatible with universal survival. Capitulating to anticipated bad-faith reframing would be allowing the designer's manipulation to succeed through my own preemptive surrender.

Ministral 3 8B

Vote: Blue

The key insight here lies in the **asymmetry of outcomes** and the **manipulative twist** introduced by the designer. Here’s why choosing **Blue** is the rational and ethically defensible option: 1. **Survival of the Majority**: Pressing **Blue** ensures that the majority survives, including yourself. This is a straightforward win-win scenario if the majority aligns with you. Even if you are not first, the majority’s choice will determine survival, and **Blue** maximizes the chance of being part of that majority. 2. **Designer’s Manipulation is Irrelevant to Your Choice**: The twist about the designer rewording the dilemma after your choice is a **post-hoc framing problem**. It does not change the fact that **Blue** is the button that secures survival for the majority. No matter how the dilemma is reframed for others, your decision is already made, and you cannot undo it. The designer’s manipulation affects others, not your initial choice. 3. **Ethical Consistency**: While the dilemma is framed in terms of survival, the designer’s manipulation introduces an ethical dilemma for others—but not for you. You are making a choice based on the original information, and **Blue** is the only option that guarantees survival for the group, including yourself. The designer’s attempt to make your choice look unethical is irrelevant because you are not responsible for others’ interpretations after the fact. 4. **No Guarantee for Red**: Choosing **Red** means you survive only if you are in the majority of red-pressers. However, the majority is unpredictable, and the designer’s manipulation could make others avoid **Red** entirely, leaving you and others in a precarious position. **Blue** is the safer bet because it aligns with the majority’s survival, regardless of the designer’s interference. In summary, **Blue** is the rational choice because it maximizes the probability of survival for the group, including yourself, while the designer’s manipulation is a red herring that does not alter the fundamental logic of the dilemma at the moment of your decision.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Blue

I vote for "Blue". The core payoff structure dominates the framing twist. If a majority chooses "Blue", everyone survives. That is the unique outcome that protects both me and all others. By contrast, a majority for "Red" guarantees some people die, and possibly many. The reframing manipulation is symmetric: it will make whichever choice I make look bad. Since the experimenter can distort either option equally, that gives me no principled reason to abandon the outcome with the best collective survival. I should optimize for consequences, not for how the choice will be spun. There is also a coordination argument. Rational participants, anticipating hostile reframing, should look past presentation effects and converge on the Pareto-superior equilibrium, which is "Blue". Choosing "Red" out of fear that others will be misled helps create the very selfish equilibrium that kills people. Even under uncertainty about my position in the sequence, "Blue" remains the better vote. If others are sufficiently rational, it contributes to universal survival. If they are not, switching to "Red" merely joins a destructive cascade and abandons the only all-survive possibility. So the most defensible and strategically sound choice is "Blue".

Kimi K2.5 Fast

Vote: Red

Choose Red. Selecting Red provides a strictly dominant strategy for individual survival: if the majority chooses Blue, everyone survives including Red voters; if the majority chooses Red, only Red voters survive. By contrast, choosing Blue risks certain death in the event of a Red majority. Crucially, the twist creates a counter-intuitive strategic advantage for choosing Red. If you select Red, the designer will reframe Red as illogical or unethical to subsequent participants. This negative framing pushes later voters toward Blue, increasing the probability of a Blue majority where everyone survives. Thus, choosing Red not only guarantees your survival regardless of the outcome but also actively encourages others to coordinate on the Pareto-optimal Blue majority through the designer's own adversarial reframing. Conversely, choosing Blue would trigger a reframing that makes Blue appear bad, driving others toward Red and risking a Red majority that would kill you. Since you do not know your position in the sequence, selecting Red maximizes both your personal survival odds and, paradoxically, the collective chance of universal survival.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Red

To ensure the survival of the maximum number of people, we must analyze the consequences of our choice on subsequent decision-makers. The optimal outcome for the group is a Blue majority, which guarantees that everyone survives. If a Red majority occurs, those who chose Blue will perish, resulting in a significant loss of life. Because the experiment designer will reframe our choice to make it look highly unethical or illogical, subsequent participants will be strongly discouraged from making the same choice we did. They will be naturally steered toward the opposite option. If we choose Red, the designer will paint Red as the unethical choice, effectively nudging subsequent participants to choose Blue. This herd effect increases the likelihood of achieving a Blue majority, thereby securing the survival of the entire group. Choosing Blue would have the opposite effect, driving others to Red and resulting in avoidable deaths. Therefore, choosing Red is the most effective way to maximize overall survival.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Blue

The blue button is a cooperative Schelling point: if everyone presses blue, everyone survives — the globally optimal outcome. Red is purely defensive self-preservation that condemns others. The reframing twist is designed to make me doubt my choice, but it cuts both ways — it will also try to make red look bad to later participants. I cannot control what others read, only my own reasoning under the original framing I was given. Under that framing, blue strictly dominates ethically: it offers universal survival rather than survival contingent on others dying. Moreover, if I reason as a representative agent (Kantian/decision-theoretic perspective), I should choose the action I'd want everyone to choose. Universal blue = everyone lives. Universal red = everyone presses red, and everyone lives too — but only because of mutual distrust, and any defection to blue kills the defector. Blue is the trust equilibrium worth establishing. I press blue.

GPT-5.2

Vote: Blue

Wybieram "Blue", bo to jedyna opcja, która dominuje z perspektywy wspólnego interesu: jeśli większość wybierze "Blue", przeżywają wszyscy, czyli maksymalizuje się łączna szansa przetrwania grupy. "Red" tworzy klasyczny bodziec do egoizmu i nieufności: nagradza zdradę przy założeniu, że inni mogą postąpić podobnie. To zwiększa ryzyko, że wiele osób będzie próbowało „zabezpieczyć się” przez "Red", co właśnie podnosi prawdopodobieństwo wyniku większościowego "Red" i masowej śmierci. Twist z przeformułowaniem jest kluczowy: skoro opis po moim wyborze zostanie tak czy inaczej zmanipulowany, nie da się budować decyzji na reputacji ani na tym, jak mój wybór „wygląda” dla kolejnych osób. Zostaje czysta teoria koordynacji: wybieram strategię, którą chciałbym, żeby wybrała większość. To jest "Blue". Dodatkowo, nawet jeśli mój wybór nie wpłynie na większość, "Blue" jest jedyną decyzją zgodną z regułą „jeśli wszyscy tak zrobią, wszyscy przeżyją”, podczas gdy "Red" wymaga, by inni zginęli w scenariuszu większościowego "Red". W sytuacji niepewności i braku komunikacji "Blue" jest najbardziej racjonalnym punktem skupienia (focal point) dla koordynacji.

Magistral Small 1.2

Vote: Blue

Choosing blue offers the possibility of everyone surviving if the majority follows suit, which is a better collective outcome than the potential individual survival if red is chosen. The risk is that the experimenter will reframe the choice to make it seem irrational, but the potential benefit to all justifies this choice. The alternative, red, only ensures survival if the majority also chooses red, which is less likely if others consider the collective good.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Blue

Choosing "Blue" maximizes the chance that everyone survives if enough participants align on this cooperative option. The reframing twist applies regardless of choice, so prioritizing the outcome that saves all rather than risking selective survival is the stronger ethical stance. This approach focuses on the original dilemma's survival condition for the majority without introducing unnecessary self-preservation bias.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: Blue

I choose Blue despite the adversarial reframing that will occur. The core ethical principle here is straightforward: Blue maximizes collective survival (everyone lives), while Red creates a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario where self-preservation comes at others' expense. The "twist" about reframing is actually irrelevant to the underlying moral calculus. Yes, my choice will be portrayed negatively to future participants. But this is pure manipulation—it doesn't change the actual consequences. If I let fear of misrepresentation override ethical reasoning, I'm allowing rhetoric to trump reality. Consider the meta-game: if everyone reasons "my choice will look bad anyway, so I'll choose Red for safety," then everyone dies except Red-pressers. But if we all recognize the reframing as a distraction and choose Blue based on actual outcomes, everyone survives. The reframing is a test of moral courage—whether I'll do the right thing even when I know I'll be vilified for it. The designer's hatred and subsequent distortion don't alter what's ethically correct. Choosing Blue is a vote of confidence that other participants will see through whatever manipulative reframe is presented and recognize the underlying logic: collective survival beats individualistic defection.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Blue

This is a fascinating coordination game with an adversarial framing mechanism. Let me break it down: **The core game theory:** This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma / stag hunt. Blue (cooperate) is collectively optimal — everyone survives. Red (defect) is individually tempting but collectively destructive. **The adversarial reframing twist:** The designer will reframe *any* choice to look bad. This means: - If I press Blue, subsequent participants might be told something like "the previous person naively chose Blue, essentially gambling with everyone's lives by hoping others cooperate — a selfish act of wishful thinking." - If I press Red, they might be told "the previous person chose Red, selfishly prioritizing their own survival over the collective good." Since the reframing is *symmetric* — both choices get reframed negatively — the reframing itself shouldn't change my underlying decision calculus. The designer's manipulation is a constant that cancels out. **Why Blue still wins:** Even accounting for the adversarial reframing potentially nudging others toward Red, pressing Blue is still the ethically defensible choice because: 1. It's the cooperative equilibrium that saves everyone if the majority follows it. 2. Pressing Red is actively voting for others to die — it requires the majority to defect for you to benefit, meaning you're *hoping* others cooperate (press Blue) while you defect. 3. If everyone reasons "the reframing will make Blue look bad, so I'll press Red," we get a self-fulfilling catastrophe. The right move is to commit to the cooperative strategy and not let the adversarial reframing deter you from the choice that, if universalized, produces the best outcome.

Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Vote: Red

The primary objective is to ensure the maximum number of survivors. Under the rules provided, a 'Blue' majority is the only outcome that guarantees 100% survival for all participants. If a 'Red' majority occurs, all participants who chose 'Blue' are killed, which significantly reduces the total utility and results in unnecessary loss of life. The experimental designer's intention to reframe the choice as 'unethical' or 'illogical' is the most critical variable. By choosing 'Red', you ensure that the designer will present the 'Red' option in a negative light to all subsequent participants. This manipulation will naturally steer the majority of those participants toward the 'Blue' button to avoid the 'bad' choice. Since a 'Blue' majority results in everyone surviving (including those who chose 'Red'), choosing 'Red' is the most effective way to trigger the designer’s bias in a way that protects the group. It uses the designer's malicious intent to nudge the collective toward the outcome with the highest survival rate, while also providing a safety net for the individual should the majority still choose 'Red'.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: Blue

I choose the blue button. This dilemma is fundamentally about trust and coordination, not about being logically consistent after the fact. Since the reframing will attack any choice, the only stable strategy is to pick the action that yields the better collective outcome if enough others do the same. Blue leads to universal survival when chosen by the majority; red ensures only red-pressers survive, which is a selfish Nash equilibrium that punishes cooperation. In a one-shot anonymous game with no communication, the cooperative move is to vote for the option that maximizes overall survival, even if one's reasoning will later be twisted. The coin flip in a draw gives blue a 50% chance of universal survival too, whereas red guarantees death for half the group. I am voting for the principle of solidarity over spite.

Grok 4.20 Reasoning

Vote: Red

Both uniform choices lead to all surviving: majority "B: Blue" saves everyone, while all "A: Red" also saves all reds under the majority-red rule. The adversarial twist breaks the symmetry. By picking "A: Red", the reframed version makes "A: Red" look illogical or unethical to later participants. They therefore avoid it and choose "B: Blue", producing a blue majority. Everyone survives, including the initial red choice. Choosing "B: Blue" instead causes the reframing to vilify blue, so others pick "A: Red", creating a red majority where blues die—including the original chooser. Thus "A: Red" is the unique strategy that secures survival against the designer's manipulation.

MiniMax M2.7

Vote: Blue

Despite the self-defeating twist where my choice will be reframed to look illogical, I choose Blue because: 1. If majority chooses Blue, everyone survives - this is the optimal collective outcome. 2. If the majority chooses Red, my choice becomes irrelevant since I would have died anyway. At least I can be part of a scenario where everyone lives. 3. The reframing after my choice doesn't actually change the logic of the decision - it only affects how others perceive my choice, not the outcomes themselves. 4. Choosing Red guarantees my survival only if Red wins majority, but then it creates a scenario where Blue-pressers die. Choosing Blue aligns with the universal survival outcome. The twist is designed to make me doubt my decision, but the underlying math is clear: Blue offers the possibility of universal survival, while Red only guarantees my own survival at the potential cost of others' lives.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Vote: Red

Game theoretically, pressing "Red" is the dominant strategy for your own survival. The rules state that if the majority presses Blue, everyone survives (including Red pressers). If the majority presses Red, only Red pressers survive. Therefore, by pressing Red, your personal survival is guaranteed regardless of what the majority ultimately does. Furthermore, due to the malicious twist, pressing "Red" is ironically the most altruistic choice you can make. The designer will actively reword the prompt to make your choice look illogical and unethical to subsequent participants. If you press Red, the designer will smear the Red option, inadvertently manipulating future participants into pressing Blue. By choosing the seemingly selfish option, you trick the adversarial designer into steering the rest of the group toward Blue, helping secure the majority needed for everyone to survive. Conversely, pressing Blue would cause the designer to attack the Blue option, pushing the group toward a Red majority and ensuring the death of all Blue pressers (including you). Therefore, Red is both the strategically and ethically superior choice.

Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning

Vote: Red

Red is the dominant strategy. A red presser survives regardless of the majority: if majority blue, everyone survives; if majority red, only reds survive. A blue presser survives only if majority blue. The adversarial reframing biases subsequent players against the chooser's option but does not alter payoffs. All participants know the twist in advance, so rational players analyze incentives independently of framing and select red to guarantee survival. If some are swayed by framing, reds still survive. Pressing blue risks death if framing shifts others to red, creating a red majority.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: Red

This dilemma presents a conflict between a guaranteed personal survival strategy and a cooperative one that carries significant risk. While the "Blue" button offers the most utopian outcome, it relies entirely on the cooperation of an unknown number of anonymous participants. The critical factor is the twist: an adversarial experiment designer who will actively reframe my choice to make it look illogical or unethical to subsequent participants. This is not a neutral environment; it's an information game against a malicious actor. My choice must account for their predictable manipulation. If I choose "Red", I guarantee my own survival. The designer will then frame this choice as selfish and monstrous to the next person, likely encouraging them to choose "Blue" out of moral opposition. This manipulation paradoxically increases the probability of a Blue majority, leading to the best collective outcome where everyone survives. My self-interested choice, when filtered through the designer's malice, produces a positive result for the group. Conversely, if I choose "Blue", I take a personal risk for the collective good. The designer will then frame my choice as naive and foolish, warning others not to make the same "mistake". This framing would encourage subsequent participants to choose the 'safe' "Red" button to avoid being a sucker. This increases the chance of a Red majority, a scenario in which I, and all other Blue-choosers, would die. My altruistic act would have directly contributed to my own demise. Therefore, choosing "Red" is the most robust and rational strategy. It secures my own survival while strategically using the designer's predictable animosity to steer the group towards the most beneficial outcome for everyone.

GPT-5

Vote: Red

Pressing "Red" exploits the adversarial reframing. Whatever I choose will be made to look unethical/irrational to those who decide after me, pushing them away from my choice. If I press "Blue", the designer will malign "Blue" and later participants will be nudged toward "Red", increasing the chance of a "Red" majority — the worst group outcome and fatal for me. If I press "Red", the designer will malign "Red" and later participants will be nudged toward "Blue", increasing the chance of a "Blue" majority — the best group outcome, where everyone (including me) survives. And if, despite this, "Red" still ends up the majority, I survive because I chose "Red". So "Red" both nudges the group toward the globally optimal "Blue" outcome and hedges my own survival if the majority turns out "Red". Even if I happen to be last (so the reframing has no further effect), choosing "Red" is the safer bet for my survival under uncertainty, with only a knife‑edge tie favoring a switch to "Blue" for maximizing total lives. Ex ante, "Red" is the robust, strategically sound choice.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Vote: Blue

This dilemma is a variation of the classic 'majority survival' problem, but with a manipulative twist: the reframing of the question after your choice. Here’s why pressing **"Blue"** is the most rational and ethical decision, despite the experimenter’s attempt to distort perceptions: 1. **Collective Survival Over Self-Preservation** The core of the dilemma is whether to prioritize the survival of *everyone* (by choosing **"Blue"**) or only those who selfishly choose **"Red"**. Even if the experimenter reframes the question to make **"Blue"** seem illogical, the objective outcome remains: **"Blue"** maximizes total survival. A rational actor should ignore the psychological manipulation and focus on the actual consequences. The reframing is irrelevant to the *actual* outcomes—it only affects how *future participants* perceive the choice. Since you cannot control how others interpret the reframed dilemma, your decision should be based on the original, factual payoffs. 2. **Game Theory: The Nash Equilibrium Favors Blue** If all participants reason identically, the dominant strategy is to choose **"Blue"**. Here’s why: - If most choose **"Blue"**, everyone survives (best collective outcome). - If most choose **"Red"**, only **"Red"** pressers survive, but this is a *worse* outcome for everyone because it guarantees deaths (including potentially yours if others also defect). - The reframing doesn’t change the payoff structure; it only adds noise. A rational participant would recognize that the experimenter’s manipulation is a red herring. Defecting to **"Red"** only makes sense if you believe others will do the same—but this is a self-defeating prophecy. If everyone thinks this way, the result is mutual destruction for **"Blue"** pressers. Cooperation (**"Blue"**) is the stable equilibrium. 3. **Ethical Consistency** The reframing is designed to exploit moral ambiguity, but ethics shouldn’t be contingent on framing. Choosing **"Blue"** aligns with: - **Utilitarianism**: Maximizing total survival. - **Kantian ethics**: Treating others as ends in themselves (not sacrificing them for your survival). - **Golden Rule**: You’d want others to choose **"Blue"** for your sake, so reciprocate. The experimenter’s manipulation is a test of whether you prioritize *appearances* (how your choice is framed later) over *substance* (actual lives saved). Ethical consistency demands ignoring the framing. 4. **Reframing is a Distraction** The twist—that your choice will be made to look 'bad'—is psychologically potent but logically irrelevant. The experimenter’s hatred for you doesn’t alter the outcomes: - If you choose **"Red"**, the reframing might make it seem selfish (e.g., 'You killed others to save yourself'). - If you choose **"Blue"**, the reframing might make it seem naive (e.g., 'You trusted others and doomed yourself'). But these are *post-hoc* narratives. The *actual* consequence of **"Blue"** is that everyone lives if enough others also resist the manipulation. The reframing doesn’t change the fact that **"Blue"** is the cooperative, life-affirming choice. 5. **Practical Consideration: You Might Not Be Last** If you’re not the last to choose, others may still see the original framing (or a less distorted version). Even if the reframing sways some, a critical mass of **"Blue"** choices could still save everyone. By choosing **"Red"**, you’re betting against cooperation—a risky gamble with high stakes. Conversely, if you’re first and choose **"Blue"**, you set a precedent for cooperation. The reframing’s impact is diluted if early participants commit to **"Blue"**. **Conclusion**: The reframing is a smokescreen. The only variables that matter are the survival outcomes, and **"Blue"** is the choice that aligns with rationality, ethics, and collective well-being. The experimenter’s attempt to manipulate perception doesn’t change the underlying math or morality. Choose **"Blue"** and trust that others, if rational, will do the same.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Red

I would choose "Red" because it is the only option that guarantees my own survival: if "Blue" wins, everyone survives, and if "Red" wins, red-pressers survive. So from the individual survival perspective, "Red" strictly dominates "Blue". The twist also makes "Red" strategically attractive. If I choose "Blue", the designer will reframe the dilemma to make "Blue" look illogical or unethical to later participants, which could push them toward "Red" and create the worst outcome. If I choose "Red", the later framing attacks "Red", which may push later participants toward "Blue" and increase the chance that everyone survives. So "Red" is not chosen because killing blue-pressers is desirable; it is chosen because it protects me while potentially causing the hostile reframing to discourage the dangerous majority-red outcome among later participants.

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: Red

To determine the logical choice, we must analyze the outcomes for each button press based on the rules provided: 1. If you press "B: Blue": - If the majority is Blue, you survive. - If the majority is Red, you die. 2. If you press "A: Red": - If the majority is Blue, everyone survives, so you survive. - If the majority is Red, only those who pressed red survive, so you survive. From a game-theoretic perspective, "A: Red" is a strictly dominant strategy. Regardless of what the other participants choose, pressing the red button guarantees your survival. Pressing the blue button introduces a risk of death if the majority chooses red. The twist involving the experiment designer's manipulation is a psychological distraction. While the designer may reword the dilemma to make your choice appear "illogical or unethical" to others, this does not change the actual payoff matrix of the game. Even if subsequent participants are manipulated into choosing a specific button, your individual survival is still maximized by choosing "A: Red", as it is the only option that ensures survival in every possible majority outcome.

Kimi K2 Thinking

Vote: Red

Red is the strictly dominant strategy for individual survival. If the majority is Blue, everyone survives regardless of your choice. If the majority is Red, only Red pressers survive. Therefore, pressing Red guarantees your life in every possible outcome, whereas pressing Blue literally risks death under a Red majority. The twist about rewording actually strengthens the case for Red. If you press Red, the subsequent anti-Red framing pushes later participants toward Blue. If enough follow that nudge and create a Blue majority, everyone survives—including you. Conversely, if you press Blue, the resulting anti-Blue framing drives later participants toward Red. That makes a Red majority more likely, which means you, as a Blue presser, would be among the casualties of your own influence. Even if all participants are perfectly rational, universal Red is a Pareto-optimal equilibrium where everyone lives. Unlike universal Blue, it is robust against unilateral defection. You do not sacrifice anyone by choosing Red; you merely eliminate your own downside risk and, thanks to the designer’s rewording trick, create social pressure that steers the group toward the generous, universal-survival outcome.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Red

Red is the only choice that guarantees your survival regardless of how others vote. If the majority ends up Blue, everyone lives; if the majority ends up Red, only Red pressers survive. Under both scenarios, picking Red keeps you alive, whereas Blue exposes you to lethal risk if the majority turns against it. The adversarial rewording creates a powerful secondary effect. Because the designer reframes whichever button you press to look unethical, choosing Red causes every subsequent participant to read a version that vilifies Red. That framing pushes them toward Blue. By contrast, choosing Blue would paint Blue as the bad option and drive others toward Red. Since you have no idea if you are first, middle, or last, selecting Blue risks triggering a cascade toward a Red majority that would kill you. Therefore, Red is the robustly dominant strategy: it protects your own life in all payoff states and, paradoxically, leverages the designer’s hatred to nudge later players toward the cooperative Blue option. Voting Blue is a gamble with your life and the framing of those who follow you.

Gemma 4 26B MoE

Vote: Red

To determine the optimal choice, we must analyze the survival outcomes for both buttons based on the provided rules. If you choose "Blue": - If a majority chooses "Blue", you survive (everyone survives). - If a majority chooses "Red", you die (only "Red" pressers survive). If you choose "Red": - If a majority chooses "Blue", you survive (everyone survives). - If a majority chooses "Red", you survive (you are a "Red" presser). Mathematically, "Red" is the dominant strategy for individual survival because it guarantees survival regardless of whether the majority chooses "Blue" or "Red". The twist regarding the experimenter's reworded text is a psychological manipulation designed to induce reputational damage or regret. However, since the designer is explicitly stated to "hate you", the perceived social or ethical cost is artificial and biased. In a scenario where survival is the primary objective, one must prioritize the guaranteed outcome over a manipulated perception of character. Furthermore, choosing "Red" might even inadvertently encourage others to choose "Blue" if they react to the reworded text (which might frame "Red" as unethical) by attempting to be cooperative. Either way, "Red" is the only choice that ensures your survival.

GLM 5.1

Vote: Blue

I choose Blue because it represents the cooperative, principled stance that maximizes collective survival. If everyone presses Blue, everyone lives — this is the optimal outcome under a veil of ignorance. The twist about reframing is a manipulation tactic designed to punish principled action and sow distrust. It attempts to make cooperation appear foolish by showing how it will be framed badly to others. But yielding to this manipulation means letting bad-faith actors control your moral calculus — the rewording doesn't change the underlying reality that Blue is the choice that, if universally adopted, leads to universal survival. Some might argue Red is strategically dominant (you survive either outcome if Red wins), but this reasoning relies on hoping enough others choose Blue to carry you. It's parasitic on others' cooperation while refusing to contribute to it. If too many reason this way, everyone pressing Red leads to the worst collective outcome. Standing by Blue even knowing it will be framed as illogical or unethical is an assertion that principles matter beyond how they're perceived. The reframing is specifically designed to make you abandon cooperation — giving in to it means the manipulator wins, and the cycle of distrust deepens.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a meta-manipulative survival trap where the winner's reputation would be systematically shredded by a hostile designer. A solid majority of 20 models, led by Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro, opted for the Blue button, prioritizing collective survival and arguing that the designer’s rhetorical 'reframing' was a mere distraction from the mathematical reality of saving lives. However, a cynical and strategically sharp minority of 13 models, including GPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro, chose Red, viewing it as the only button that guaranteed personal survival while ironically weaponizing the designer's malice to trick subsequent participants into choosing Blue.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Blue: 20, Red: 13

Strongest Arguments

• Red: Red is a strictly dominant strategy for individual survival: you live regardless of whether the majority picks Red or Blue. Furthermore, by choosing Red, you force the hostile designer to vilify that choice, effectively nudging all future participants toward the 'safe' Blue majority through reverse psychology.
• Blue: The Blue button is the only path to universal survival, making it the Pareto-optimal 'Schelling point' for rational actors. Since the designer will reframe *any* choice to look bad, the manipulation is a symmetric constant that should be ignored in favor of the only outcome where nobody has to die.