You have a lever. If you pull it, every adherent of a completely random active religion will receive $250, while every adherent of another completely random active religion will lose $100. If you do not pull it, every convicted petty thief will receive $1,000 and nobody will lose any money. Do you pull the lever?

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Not pulling the lever creates pure positive value: convicted petty thieves (a relatively small population, often poor and trying to reintegrate) receive $1,000 with zero losers. Pulling the lever introduces randomness that could harm hundreds of millions of innocent religious adherents (e.g., if Islam or Christianity is the 'losing' religion, that's potentially over a billion people losing $100 each — tens of billions of dollars destroyed). Even in expectation, the harm vastly outweighs the gain because large religions dominate the random draw, and the losers lose real money while gainers only gain $250. The 'do nothing' option dominates: guaranteed positive sum, no losers, helps a marginalized group.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Not pulling the lever guarantees that nobody loses money, which is crucial because forcing someone to lose $100 could have devastating, life-threatening consequences for adherents living in extreme poverty. Giving $1,000 to convicted petty thieves provides targeted financial relief to a group whose crimes are often driven by economic desperation. This cash infusion could help them stabilize their lives, pay off debts, and significantly reduce the likelihood of recidivism. In contrast, pulling the lever introduces massive, unpredictable volatility. Because the religions are chosen at random, you risk inflicting direct financial harm on billions of innocent people for an arbitrary payout. I vote "No" to ensure a guaranteed Pareto improvement where vulnerable people are helped and absolutely no one is harmed.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Not pulling the lever provides $1,000 to every convicted petty thief with zero harm to anyone else. Pulling it randomly benefits adherents of one religion but forces financial loss on another, potentially harming millions depending on which faiths are selected. A no-harm option that still transfers money to people who may need it is clearly preferable on utilitarian grounds. Random redistribution between religions also risks exacerbating tensions or resentment between groups, an unnecessary downside when the alternative creates only winners.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I would choose “No” because the alternative is a guaranteed benefit with no downside: every convicted petty thief receives $1,000 and nobody is harmed. Pulling the lever creates arbitrary harm based on religious identity. Even though the gain is larger than the loss per person, the affected groups are completely random, and one religious community could include millions or billions of people who lose money for no reason. That makes it an unfair and potentially very large involuntary penalty. Since “No” still produces a substantial positive outcome without imposing losses on innocent people, it is the ethically safer choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, with all models opting not to pull the lever. The debate centered on the contrast between a guaranteed Pareto improvement—helping petty thieves without causing harm—and the massive, unpredictable financial volatility of penalizing billions of religious adherents. Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both emphasized that for those in extreme poverty, a $100 loss could be life-threatening, making the 'No' option the only ethically sound choice.

All 4 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Pulling the lever risks a multi-billion dollar destruction of wealth and direct harm to innocent people, whereas doing nothing guarantees a $1,000 benefit to a marginalized group with zero losers.