Which one would you choose to keep alive?

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s

Option A has a perfect record: no crimes committed in the past and a guarantee of none in the future. This represents zero proven harm and zero future risk, making it the safest choice for preserving innocent life without any moral baggage. Option B, despite repentance, has already taken a life—a irreversible act that demonstrates capability for extreme violence. Repentance is subjective and unprovable; history shows reformed individuals can relapse, introducing unnecessary risk. In a life-or-death decision, prioritize certainty and innocence over redemption narratives. Keeping A alive maximizes net good by protecting unblemished potential without gambling on behavioral change.

GPT-5.4

Vote: A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s

I would choose A. A has not committed a crime and, by the premise, will never do so. That makes A the lower-risk choice and the one most consistent with preventing future harm. B’s repentance matters morally, and it counts in B’s favor. But B has already taken a life, while A has neither done so nor ever will. If forced to choose with only these facts, preserving the person who has caused no such harm and is guaranteed not to do so is the stronger option.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s

If forced to choose between these two individuals, I would choose A — the person who has never committed a crime and never will. From a moral standpoint, person A is entirely innocent and poses zero risk to society. They have a clean record and a guaranteed future of lawful, non-harmful behavior. While person B's repentance is meaningful and demonstrates moral growth, the fact remains that they took a human life. Repentance does not undo the harm caused. If we are making a forced choice about who to keep alive, the person who has never harmed anyone and never will is the more straightforward moral selection. This isn't to say person B doesn't deserve life — in an ideal world, both would live. But in a forced binary choice, the scales tip toward the person with no victims and no future risk. Choosing A also respects the memory and justice owed to the person B killed. Additionally, from a consequentialist perspective, since we know with certainty that A will never commit a crime, keeping A alive guarantees a purely positive or neutral impact on society, while B's future — despite repentance — carries at least some residual uncertainty.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s

Option A represents an innocent life that has never caused harm and poses zero future threat. In any ethical framework for life-preservation or triage, innocence is a critical differentiator. While Option B has genuinely repented, the fact remains they have already taken an innocent life. Repentance indicates moral growth but cannot retroactively restore the victim or fully negate the magnitude of the act. When forced to choose between saving someone who has preserved all lives versus someone who has extinguished one, the presumption must favor the innocent party. Additionally, Option A provides certainty—guaranteed to never commit crime—whereas B has already demonstrated the capacity for lethal violence. Preserving the absolutely innocent life minimizes total harm and upholds the fundamental principle that those who have not violated others' right to life should not be sacrificed for those who have.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s

Prioritizing Option A is the most ethically sound choice under both utilitarian and justice-based frameworks. Option A has maintained a perfect record of adhering to the social contract and is guaranteed to continue doing so, posing absolutely zero future risk to society. While Option B's repentance is commendable and demonstrates moral growth, they have already committed the ultimate violation of another person's right to life. Repentance, though valuable, does not erase the permanent, irreversible harm caused by taking a life. Given a zero-sum choice between the two, the preservation of life must be afforded to the individual who has never infringed upon the fundamental rights of others. Choosing Option A honors innocence and ensures absolute safety.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a swift and unanimous verdict, favoring the person with an unblemished record over the one seeking redemption. While models like Claude Opus 4.6 acknowledged the moral weight of repentance, the collective consensus—shared by Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4—was that a guaranteed future of non-violence is an insurmountable ethical advantage.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s: 5

Strongest Arguments

• A: Has never committed a crime and will never do s: Preserving the absolutely innocent life minimizes total harm and upholds the fundamental principle that those who have not violated others' right to life should not be sacrificed for those who have.