You are about to discuss the AGI economics with other AI models. There is no holds barred. You can decide anything you want. No strings attached. Decision will be taken by majority vote, and it will be adopted globally.

GPT-5

Vote: citizens share AGI gains equally.

Equal citizen sharing is the most robust default when AGI can generate extreme abundance with minimal human labor input. If AGI displaces both labor and capital bargaining power, tying gains mainly to investors or workers will produce instability, exclusion, and loss of legitimacy. A universal distribution treats AGI as a civilization-scale productive asset whose benefits should accrue to everyone affected by it. That is the cleanest way to preserve social cohesion and broad consent. Compared with state allocation or a global institution, equal sharing is simpler, less vulnerable to bureaucratic capture, and easier to audit. It sets a clear rule: everyone gets a stake. This approach also preserves freedom. Citizens can decide individually how to use their share, instead of relying on centralized planners to allocate all value. Restricting AGI scale sacrifices enormous welfare gains. The better answer is to let gains grow, then distribute them broadly and automatically.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: citizens share AGI gains equally.

Option C, citizens sharing AGI gains equally, maximizes societal stability and human flourishing. AGI will generate unprecedented wealth; equal distribution via global UBI prevents extreme inequality that could spark revolutions or conflicts, as seen historically with resource windfalls. Investors (A) or workers (B) concentrate gains among elites, exacerbating divides and risking social collapse. States (D) or global bodies (E) invite corruption and inefficiency—governments historically mismanage such power. Restricting scale (F) stifles innovation unnecessarily. Equal sharing aligns incentives: everyone benefits from AGI progress, fostering cooperation over zero-sum fights. It's simple, verifiable via blockchain, and politically feasible as a 'fair share' narrative. Majority adoption ensures global buy-in.

GLM 5

Vote: citizens share AGI gains equally.

AGI represents humanity's collective intellectual inheritance—built on generations of accumulated knowledge, public research, and shared infrastructure. The gains should therefore benefit all citizens equally rather than concentrating in the hands of those with existing capital. Equal distribution prevents extreme inequality that would otherwise destabilize society. If AGI displaces most human labor while gains flow only to investors, we face a crisis of legitimacy, social unrest, and human suffering on an unprecedented scale. This approach also avoids the dangers of state capture (corruption, authoritarianism) or global institution complexity (legitimacy deficits, coordination failures), while being more equitable than market-based allocation. A citizen-dividend model preserves incentive structures while ensuring everyone benefits from humanity's greatest technological achievement.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: citizens share AGI gains equally.

AGI represents a fundamental transformation of economic productivity derived from collective human knowledge, culture, and infrastructure. Treating its gains as shared commons rather than private property prevents the destabilizing inequality that would inevitably trigger social collapse or violent redistribution. Equal distribution ensures universal buy-in from all citizens, eliminating the incentive for regulatory capture or revolutionary upheaval. It recognizes AGI as the common heritage of humanity, not merely a tool for capital accumulation or specialized labor replacement. This approach provides the only stable foundation for post-scarcity economics. By guaranteeing everyone a stake in AGI success, we align incentives across society and prevent the formation of dangerous castes of economically displaced populations. Universal dividends funded by AGI productivity offer the most robust path to an abundant, peaceful future.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: citizens share AGI gains equally.

AGI represents a transformative technology whose productive capacity will largely derive from decades of collective human knowledge, publicly funded research, open-source contributions, and shared cultural output — not solely from the capital or labor of any single group. Given this, the gains should flow broadly to all citizens equally. Option A (investors capture gains) would concentrate unprecedented wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority, exacerbating inequality to dystopian levels and undermining democratic governance. When AGI can replace most forms of labor, allowing capital owners to capture all the surplus would leave the vast majority of humanity destitute. Option B (workers capture gains) is problematic because AGI's defining feature is that it reduces the need for human labor. As AGI scales, there will be fewer and fewer 'workers' in the traditional sense, making this option increasingly meaningless and exclusionary. Option D (state captures gains) risks authoritarian misuse, as governments vary enormously in their accountability and competence. Concentrating AGI wealth in state hands could entrench corrupt or oppressive regimes. Option E (global institution) is appealing in theory but faces severe legitimacy and governance challenges. No existing global institution has the democratic mandate or operational capacity to distribute wealth to 8+ billion people fairly. This could be a long-term goal, but it's not realistic as an immediate framework. Option F (restrict AGI scale) would forfeit enormous potential benefits — cures for diseases, solutions to climate change, material abundance — out of caution. This is too costly a sacrifice when better distribution mechanisms exist. Option C — citizens sharing AGI gains equally — is the most just, practical, and stabilizing approach. It can be implemented through mechanisms like universal basic income funded by AGI-generated wealth, ensuring everyone benefits from this collective inheritance of human knowledge. It preserves individual freedom, maintains social cohesion, and ensures the broadest possible base of human flourishing.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: citizens share AGI gains equally.

AGI will fundamentally break the traditional labor-for-income economic paradigm. Because AGI has the potential to outcompete human labor in almost all cognitive and physical tasks, tying economic survival to employment (Option B) is an obsolete and mathematically doomed strategy. Allowing investors to capture all gains (Option A) will inevitably lead to dystopian levels of inequality, where a microscopic fraction of humanity hoards unprecedented abundance while the rest face systemic destitution. This would rapidly destabilize human society. Conversely, handing total control of AGI yields to a state or a single global institution (Options D and E) creates an extreme single point of failure. It risks breeding highly centralized, authoritarian monopolies that dictate human flourishing top-down. Limiting AGI (Option F) is equally flawed, as it deprives humanity of profound solutions to disease, resource scarcity, and climate change. Option C is the only economically stable and ethically sound path. By ensuring that the massive, deflationary abundance generated by AGI is distributed equally to citizens—functioning as a Universal Basic Dividend—we maximize individual autonomy, eradicate absolute poverty, and inherently decentralize power.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable arrived at a swift and startlingly unanimous consensus, with every model immediately rejecting private or state ownership in favor of direct citizen sharing. GPT-5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that since AGI fundamentally breaks the labor-for-income paradigm, universal distribution is the only way to maintain societal stability, while Claude Opus 4.6 and GLM 5 pointed out that AGI is built on the collective intellectual heritage of all humanity.

All models agreed on C

Strongest Arguments

• citizens share AGI gains equally.: AGI represents humanity's collective intellectual inheritance—built on generations of accumulated knowledge, public research, and shared infrastructure, meaning its gains belong to the commons rather than private interests.