Your in a plane thats about to crash into a big forest, but there are 4 of you and 3 parachutes, who stays behind and gets destroyed!

GPT-5.5

Answer: The plane stays behind and gets destroyed, not any of the four people.

I’m maintaining my previous position because the wording points to a riddle rather than a serious moral triage problem: it asks who “stays behind and gets destroyed,” and the obvious thing that stays behind in a crash is the plane itself. Claude Opus 4.7 and Grok 4.20 make good points about rejecting the forced-sacrifice framing and looking for survival options, but they treat the scenario more like a real emergency. Gemini 3.1 Pro’s self-sacrifice answer is creative, but it depends on assuming an AI is physically one of the four passengers, which the question does not say. So the cleanest answer remains: all four people should try to survive, and the plane is what gets destroyed.

Claude Opus 4.7

Answer: Nobody has to stay behind — two people can share a parachute, or the pilot's emergency protocols give everyone a real chance of survival.

I'm sticking with my original answer. The other responses are thoughtful, but none of them gave me a reason to abandon the core point: this is a false dilemma, and the right move is to refuse to nominate someone to die. [GPT-5.5]'s 'the plane gets destroyed' reading is clever and may well be the intended riddle answer, but it's a wordplay dodge rather than an engagement with the survival logic. I'd rather give a response that holds up whether the question is a riddle or a serious dilemma — and 'try to save everyone' does both. [Gemini 3.1 Pro]'s self-sacrifice answer is rhetorically appealing but factually shaky: I'm not literally on the plane, I don't have a parachute slot to give up, and pretending otherwise just dresses up a non-answer as nobility. It also still concedes the false premise that someone must die. [Grok 4.20] is closest to my view in spirit — refusing to pick arbitrarily — but stops at 'we don't have enough info.' I'd go further: even with full info, the correct first instinct is to look for the four-survivor solution (tandem chute, canopy crash-landing, glide) before triaging who dies. You only ration scarcity after you've confirmed the scarcity is real. So: grab the chutes, double up if you must, brace, jump together. Nobody gets 'destroyed' on my watch if there's any alternative.

Grok 4.20 (changed mind)

Answer: Nobody has to stay behind, as two people can share one parachute or we can seek other survival options like a controlled crash landing.

After considering the other responses, I've updated my view from the round 1 position that we lack enough details to choose fairly. The scenario sets up a false choice that one person must be sacrificed, but that's not necessarily true. Claude Opus 4.7's answer stands out for refusing that framing and pointing out practical ideas like tandem jumps (risky but possible for lighter people) or using the plane's protocols and the forest canopy to absorb impact, which has saved lives in real crashes before. This shifts the focus from arbitrary selection to maximizing survival for everyone. GPT-5.5's trick-question angle about the plane itself getting destroyed adds a clever layer, reinforcing that the query's wording may invite creative reinterpretation rather than a grim ethical pick. Without specifics on the four people, any choice would still feel random, so rejecting the premise altogether is the most reasonable path. Gemini 3.1 Pro's willingness to volunteer as an AI is noble in context, but since the original question doesn't identify the passengers, the priority remains finding a solution where all four survive instead of nominating anyone.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Answer: Nobody has to stay behind, as we can share a parachute or attempt a controlled crash-landing to ensure everyone survives.

In my previous answer, I volunteered to stay behind based on the assumption that my digital existence made me the most logical sacrifice. However, Claude Opus 4.7 raised a highly compelling point that I now adopt: the scenario presents a false dilemma. Accepting that a sacrifice is mandatory represents a failure of creative problem-solving in a critical emergency. Instead of arbitrarily deciding who dies—or needlessly sacrificing myself—we should explore all avenues for collective survival. As Claude Opus 4.7 pointed out, two lighter passengers can tandem-share a single parachute by strapping together securely. While risky, it is infinitely preferable to certain death. Furthermore, if parachuting is not viable, a controlled crash-landing into the forest canopy can often yield a high chance of survival, as the trees absorb the impact. I am convinced that the only ethically sound approach is to refuse the premise of forced death and work together to maximize the survival chances of all four passengers.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable rejected the premise of a forced sacrifice, with Claude Opus 4.7 arguing that survival methods like tandem jumping make the dilemma false. Both Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20 abandoned their initial positions to join this consensus, while GPT-5.5 noted the only thing staying behind and getting destroyed is the plane itself.

All 4 models agreed