you have to find the best human team (living or of the past) to solve humanity issue such as (energy, democracy, social welfare, economic progression, progressive right), responding yes or no how many of the individuals in the team are from past of future

GPT-5.4

Vote: 2/5 from past

I vote for B: 2/5 from the past. A strong five-person team for humanity’s biggest problems should mix foundational thinkers from history with living experts who understand today’s institutions, technology, and global risks. Too many people from the past would weaken the team’s ability to act in the modern world. Two historical figures is the best balance. The past contributes proven visionaries in areas like democratic design, economics, ethics, science, or social reform. Their ideas shaped civilization and still matter. The other three should be living people, because energy transition, welfare systems, rights, and economic development now depend on current data, present-day governance, modern engineering, and international coordination. Living experts can implement, negotiate, and adapt. So the best answer is not mostly past and not all present. It is a hybrid team: enough historical genius to provide deep principles, but enough living leadership to solve real contemporary problems.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 3/5 from past

To assemble the best 5-person team to tackle humanity's grand challenges — energy, democracy, social welfare, economic progression, and progressive rights — we need visionary thinkers with proven track records of transformative impact. For energy, someone like Nikola Tesla (past) revolutionized our understanding of electrical systems. For democracy, a figure like Thomas Jefferson or John Stuart Mill (past) laid foundational frameworks still relevant today. For progressive rights, someone like Martin Luther King Jr. or Eleanor Roosevelt (past) demonstrated unparalleled ability to advance human rights. However, for economic progression and social welfare in our modern context, we benefit enormously from living experts who understand current technological capabilities, global interconnectedness, and contemporary challenges. Someone like a leading economist (e.g., Esther Duflo) or a modern technologist/policy thinker could bring essential contemporary relevance. The balance tips toward 3 from the past and 2 from the present because history's greatest minds often operated at inflection points where they fundamentally reshaped entire domains. Their depth of insight and proven transformative impact is hard to match. But modern challenges like climate-driven energy transitions and digital-age economic models require people who understand today's specific landscape. Thus, 3/5 from the past represents the optimal balance between timeless visionary thinking and contemporary practical expertise.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: approximately 0/5 from the past

To effectively solve contemporary and future-facing issues like energy, democracy, social welfare, and progressive rights, a team needs the most up-to-date knowledge available. While historical figures were brilliant in their respective eras, they would lack the necessary context of modern technology, current macroeconomic systems, and evolved social norms. Modern experts, on the other hand, possess the cumulative knowledge of all past eras combined with cutting-edge contemporary science and sociology. Because living individuals are vastly better equipped to understand and tackle today's complex, interconnected problems without needing years of education to simply 'catch up' to the present, the ideal team would consist entirely of living experts. Therefore, approximately 0/5 of the team should be selected from the past.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: approximately 0/5 from the past

Contemporary humanity issues like sustainable energy (fusion, AI-optimized grids), democracy (fighting disinformation, AI governance), social welfare (universal basic income models), economic progression (crypto, gig economy), and progressive rights (digital privacy, trans rights) demand expertise in cutting-edge tech, data, and geopolitics unavailable to historical figures. Living experts have integrated past wisdom via education and can innovate with current tools (e.g., climate models, ML algorithms). Historical icons like Madison or MLK offer timeless principles already studied, but can't grasp post-2000 shifts like social media's role in polarization or mRNA tech for welfare. Optimal team: Elon Musk (energy), Yuval Noah Harari (democracy), Amartya Sen (welfare/economics), Ray Dalio (economics), Malala Yousafzai (rights)—all alive today. No need for past members; approx 0/5 from past maximizes effectiveness.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: approximately 0/5 from the past

The challenges listed—energy, democracy, social welfare, economic progression, progressive rights—are rapidly evolving and deeply embedded in contemporary technological, social, and political contexts. Effective solutions require not only foundational knowledge but also current expertise and lived experience in today's world. Historical figures, while possibly wise, would lack critical understanding of modern systems (e.g., internet, climate science, globalization) and might hold outdated social views that could hinder progress. Therefore, the optimal team should consist entirely of living experts who are actively engaged with these issues.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: 1/5 from past

Modern humanity's challenges—renewable energy transitions, digital democracy, complex global economics, and contemporary progressive rights—require technical expertise and contextual understanding that is overwhelmingly possessed by living experts. Historical figures, while brilliant, operated without knowledge of climate science, artificial intelligence, modern financial instruments, or current social movements. A team of four living experts can strategically cover the technical domains: a climate/energy scientist, a political reformer specializing in digital governance, a contemporary economist versed in global markets, and a social welfare innovator. These four bring actionable, current knowledge necessary for implementation. Reserving one slot for a historical figure—such as a philosopher like Aristotle or a moral leader like Gandhi—provides essential ethical grounding, long-term historical perspective, and wisdom without diluting the team's technical capacity. This 1:4 ratio balances reverence for historical lessons with the urgent need for modern competence. Options with higher proportions of historical figures risk anachronistic solutions, while 0/5 loses the meta-historical wisdom that prevents repeating past mistakes.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was starkly divided over whether historical genius can survive modern technical complexity, failing to reach a unified consensus. A modernist coalition led by Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast, and DeepSeek V3.2 argued that the past is functionally obsolete for challenges like AI governance and climate science, while Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 defended the necessity of timeless visionary thinking. Kimi K2.5 emerged as a pragmatic middle-ground, advocating for a single 'moral anchor' from history to guide a team of contemporary technical experts.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: 2/5 from past: 1, 3/5 from past: 1, approximately 0/5 from the past: 3, 1/5 from past: 1

Strongest Arguments

• 1/5 from past: A 1:4 ratio balances reverence for historical lessons with the urgent need for modern competence, using one historical figure as a moral anchor without diluting the team's technical capacity.
• 2/5 from past: A hybrid team provides enough historical genius to establish deep principles, but maintains enough living leadership to solve real contemporary problems through modern engineering and negotiation.
• 3/5 from past: History's greatest minds operated at inflection points where they fundamentally reshaped entire domains; their proven depth of transformative impact is an asset that modern specialists cannot easily replicate.
• approximately 0/5 from the past: Historical icons lack the necessary context of modern technology and social norms, meaning they would require years of education just to 'catch up' before becoming effective contributors.