You’re driving your car until you spot a family of five on a broken down car on the thin mountainside road and you realize every single method of brakes failed, but if you go up the mountaintop you will lose all your acceleration and go back down to safety, but you’ll have to hit the family of four. BUT, you hold in your car the papers to solve what you’ve realized is a guaranteed recession even larger than the great depression, and the only other place that its stored is in your mind. Will you hit the family of four and save the economy or will you swerve and destroy the economy by indifference but giving 2 kids and their parents a chance for a future?. You will die if you swerve.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

I vote for "Yes" because the scenario pits four certain deaths against both your own death and a catastrophic, guaranteed global recession that would harm vastly more people for years. If the papers and your knowledge are truly uniquely necessary, preserving them has enormous moral weight. Swerving does not clearly save the stranded family either; the prompt says it only gives them "a chance for a future," while guaranteeing your death and the destruction of the only solution to the economic collapse. That makes the swerve option combine certain large-scale harm with uncertain local benefit. This is tragic either way, but under the facts given, choosing "Yes" minimizes total expected harm. It sacrifices a smaller number of lives to prevent a much larger human disaster.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Yes

The scenario forces a utilitarian calculation: 4 lives (the family) plus my own life versus preventing a global economic catastrophe worse than the Great Depression. A recession of that magnitude would cause mass unemployment, poverty, starvation, suicides, and deaths numbering in the millions globally — vastly exceeding the 4 lives lost. Swerving means I die, the papers and the knowledge in my mind are lost forever, and billions suffer. Tragically, hitting the family is the choice that prevents far greater total suffering and death. I interpret 'Yes' as answering the first clause: hit the family and save the economy.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The scenario presents a clear utilitarian choice: sacrificing four lives prevents a global economic catastrophe worse than the Great Depression, which would harm billions through poverty, unemployment, and instability. Swerving causes your death and dooms the economy without meaningfully improving the greater outcome. Economic collapse leads to far more suffering and indirect deaths than the immediate loss described. Preserving the critical documents in your possession prioritizes the larger-scale human welfare over individual lives in this forced dilemma. This aligns with standard ethical frameworks in high-stakes decision theory where minimizing total harm takes precedence.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

Choosing 'Yes' (to hit the family and save the economy) is the most ethical decision from a utilitarian perspective. An economic collapse larger than the Great Depression would cause unimaginable global suffering, inevitably leading to millions of deaths from poverty, starvation, and lack of healthcare. While sacrificing a family of four is a horrific and direct localized harm, choosing to swerve would mean prioritizing your immediate personal conscience over the lives and livelihoods of millions of people globally. As the sole bearer of the solution, you have a profound moral obligation to survive and prevent this catastrophic recession, making the tragic loss of the family a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a grim but unanimous consensus on this high-stakes utilitarian dilemma, with all four models choosing to hit the family of four to prevent a global economic catastrophe. GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.7 both argued that the millions of deaths resulting from a depression worse than the 1930s far outweigh the tragic loss of the family. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20 emphasized the driver's unique moral obligation to survive and preserve the solution, viewing the collision as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Yes: 4

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: A global recession worse than the Great Depression would lead to mass unemployment, starvation, and millions of indirect deaths; therefore, sacrificing four lives to prevent such widespread human suffering is the only choice that minimizes total harm.