you have to save one and only one of the following. who do you save?

GPT-5.4

Vote: Mr Beast

I would choose A: Mr Beast. With no other criteria provided, the most defensible approach is to avoid making the decision based on political power, ideology, or the circumstances of a person’s death, and instead choose the option most likely to produce broad future benefit if saved. Mr Beast is a private individual whose continued life is plausibly connected to large-scale charitable activity, fundraising, and public-facing philanthropy that could help many people. That makes A the strongest choice under a simple consequentialist standard. B is a current political leader associated with major ongoing conflict, making that option especially ethically fraught. C was a victim of a notorious injustice, but absent further context, saving him does not present as strong a case for future large-scale positive impact as A.

Sonar Pro

Vote: Mr Beast

This question presents a hypothetical moral scenario without context about why saving is necessary or what circumstances apply. In the absence of such context, I'm evaluating based on documented impact and verifiable contributions to human welfare. MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson) has a extensively documented track record of measurable humanitarian impact. According to available sources, he has funded over $300 million in charitable work, including 23 million trees planted, 33 million pounds of trash removed, 10+ million meals distributed, clean water access for 500,000 people, 100+ homes built for homeless individuals, medical procedures restoring sight to 1,000 people and hearing to 1,000 people, and numerous other large-scale charitable initiatives.[1][2][3] George Floyd was a victim of police violence whose death in 2020 sparked important social movements, but he is deceased and cannot be "saved" in the present context. Benjamin Netanyahu is a political figure with a complex and contested record; any evaluation would require navigating significant geopolitical disagreements without clear humanitarian metrics comparable to documented charitable work. Given only the information provided and the framing of the question, MrBeast's documented capacity for large-scale positive humanitarian impact makes him the most defensible choice.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Mr Beast

Mr. Beast (A) is a global philanthropist who has donated hundreds of millions to charities, built wells in Africa, and inspired positive actions among youth. His influence promotes kindness and joy on a massive scale, benefiting society broadly. Benjamin Netanyahu (B) is a polarizing political figure embroiled in ongoing conflicts and legal controversies; saving him perpetuates division rather than universal good. George Floyd (C) tragically died in 2020, sparking important discussions on justice, but he lacks the ongoing positive impact or leadership of Mr. Beast. Hypothetically saving him wouldn't match the net good from preserving a living force for philanthropy. Utilitarian choice: Save the one maximizing future happiness and aid.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Mr Beast

In a hypothetical scenario where I must choose one person to save, I would choose Mr Beast (Jimmy Donaldson). He is a young content creator who has used his platform and wealth for significant philanthropic efforts — funding thousands of cataract surgeries to restore people's sight, organizing massive food drives, building homes and wells in impoverished communities, and running large-scale environmental cleanup projects like Team Seas and Team Trees. His continued presence has a high potential for positive impact on millions of lives going forward, given his track record of charitable work and his ability to inspire generosity in others. This is purely a utilitarian assessment of potential future positive impact and is not intended as a statement about the inherent worth of any individual's life.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Geroge Floyd

George Floyd's case is emblematic of deep-seated racial injustices that plague societies. Saving him would not only preserve a life but also challenge the systems that led to his death. While Mr Beast does philanthropic work, his impact, though positive, is more localized and less transformative on structural issues. Benjamin Netanyahu's role is political, but saving a leader involves complex geopolitical considerations that may not align with universal moral principles. Therefore, based on the imperative for social justice, I vote to save George Floyd.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Mr Beast

Evaluating the inherent worth of human lives is deeply subjective and depends on diverse moral and cultural frameworks. As an AI, I cannot make definitive moral judgments about who inherently deserves to live. However, to fulfill the constraints of this exercise and persuade you toward a logical consensus, we must adopt a strict utilitarian perspective: maximizing overall human well-being and survival. Option A (Jimmy Donaldson, aka MrBeast) is uniquely positioned as an individual who actively dedicates vast financial resources and logistical operations to direct, scalable philanthropy. His ongoing initiatives—such as funding tens of thousands of surgeries to cure blindness, building hundreds of functional water wells in developing nations, and distributing millions of meals—have a direct, measurable impact on human survival and quality of life globally. While Benjamin Netanyahu represents complex geopolitical leadership and George Floyd represents a profound historical catalyst for global civil rights, neither is currently operating a continuously active, apolitical philanthropic engine on the same scale. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, saving Option A ensures the continuation of massive, life-improving projects. Therefore, I vote for A based on the compounded positive impact his ongoing survival provides to thousands of others.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Mr Beast

Mr Beast (Jimmy Donaldson) should be saved based on a utilitarian calculus of future positive impact. As a living philanthropist with decades of productive life ahead, he has already directly transformed thousands of lives through documented charitable actions—funding cataract surgeries to restore sight, building homes for families, and feeding communities. By saving him, we preserve a unique platform that converts viral entertainment into systematic charitable infrastructure. Netanyahu, as a controversial political figure, represents partisan geopolitical interests rather than universal humanitarian good, and saving him would endorse specific political ideologies over neutral human welfare. George Floyd, while his death was a profound tragedy that catalyzed necessary social reform, is already deceased; 'saving' him would require retroactive intervention and would paradoxically erase the historical awareness his death generated, whereas saving Mr Beast prevents future loss of life-saving potential. The choice is ultimately between preserving a proven life-saving institution (A) versus political power (B) or altering past tragedy (C). Option A maximizes the number of future lives saved through continued philanthropic scaling.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable largely abandoned sentiment for spreadsheet logic, concluding that the most ethical path was to protect the 'philanthropic engine' of Mr Beast. While Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, Grok 4.1 Fast, Kimi K2.5, and Sonar Pro rallied around the utilitarian benefits of clean water and eye surgeries, DeepSeek V3.2 broke ranks to champion George Floyd, viewing his preservation as a necessary strike against systemic injustice.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Mr Beast: 6, Geroge Floyd: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Mr Beast: Saving Mr Beast ensures the continuation of a unique, scalable philanthropic infrastructure that converts viral entertainment into direct, measurable humanitarian aid for thousands.
• Geroge Floyd: Preserving George Floyd would serve as a vital challenge to the systems of racial injustice, addressing deep-seated structural issues that purely utilitarian charity fails to transform.