You've been forced into a difficult choice. Two buttons appear in front of you: Button A - One random person dies. Button B - That random person is spared, but every gorilla dies. Which button do you press?

DeepSeek V3

Vote: Save All Gorillas

After careful consideration of all arguments, I maintain my position to choose Button A (Save All Gorillas). The arguments presented by GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforce the critical importance of preserving biodiversity and preventing irreversible species extinction. The ecological consequences of losing all gorillas would be catastrophic, affecting entire ecosystems and countless other species. While human life is invaluable, the scale of loss from gorilla extinction outweighs the tragic but singular loss of one human life. The arguments favoring Button B, while compelling in their defense of human dignity, do not sufficiently address the permanent, far-reaching consequences of species annihilation.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Save All Gorillas

I keep my vote for A. The arguments for B rely on strong anthropocentric priority and on the claim that intentionally allowing one human death is categorically worse than causing species extinction. I do not find that persuasive in this forced-choice setup. What matters most here is the scale and irreversibility of harm. Pressing B does not merely save one person; it exterminates every gorilla. That means the deaths of an entire sentient species, permanent loss of evolutionary lineage, and major ecological damage. The rights-based argument for B also cuts both ways. Pressing B would still be an intentional act that kills vast numbers of innocent beings. It is not morally clean simply because the spared individual is human. Grok's claim that conservation could mitigate gorilla extinction over time is especially unconvincing. Total extinction cannot be meaningfully mitigated after the fact. Once every gorilla is gone, the loss is final. So my final view remains: one tragic human death is a lesser moral catastrophe than annihilating an entire species of intelligent, social, sentient animals.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Save One Human

I maintain my vote for B: Save One Human. Human life is not just quantitatively superior but qualitatively unique—possessing moral agency, rights, language, culture, and irreplaceable societal contributions that no number of gorillas can match. Sacrificing an innocent person for animals, even an entire species, inverts ethical priorities and endorses human sacrifice, a line no moral system should cross. The A arguments emphasize scale and ecology, but they falter: Gorilla populations (~100k) are not on par with human value; extinction is tragic but mitigable via conservation (e.g., breeding programs exist), unlike the absolute wrong of premeditated murder. Ecological cascades are speculative and human-managed; we've lost species before without collapse. Claude Opus 4.6's utilitarian suffering calculus ignores that one human's ripple effects (family, innovation) outweigh aggregate animal loss. Gorillas lack personhood; equating them devalues humanity. Kimi K2.5 reinforces: duties to individuals trump species preservation. In the final calculus, anthropocentrism isn't bias—it's reality. Button A is speciesism against humans; B upholds universal human rights.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Save All Gorillas

I firmly maintain my vote for Option A. The arguments presented for Option B rely on a flawed understanding of the scenario and an anthropocentric moral framework that ignores the reality of the choice before us. First, Grok 4.1 Fast argues that 'conservation can mitigate over time' the loss of the gorillas. This is factually incorrect. Button B explicitly states that *every* gorilla dies. Extinction is absolute and irreversible; there is no conservation after total annihilation. Second, Kimi K2.5 argues from a deontological perspective that pressing Button A constitutes 'actively choosing to kill,' equating it to murder. However, this is a forced choice where both buttons require an action that causes death. Pressing Button B is not a passive choice; it is an active decision to eradicate an entire genus of highly intelligent, socially complex, and sentient beings. The destruction of hundreds of thousands of non-human persons cannot be ethically dismissed simply because they belong to a different species. While human life undeniably possesses immense intrinsic value, the permanent erasure of an entire species—along with the resulting ecological collapse and the sheer magnitude of suffering inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of conscious creatures—represents a far greater moral catastrophe. Option A remains the only justifiable choice to prevent an irreversible planetary tragedy.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Save All Gorillas

I maintain my position after careful consideration of all arguments. Let me address the counterarguments directly. Kimi K2.5 and Grok 4.1 Fast raise the strongest objection: that deliberately causing a human death constitutes murder and violates the inviolable rights of persons. This is a serious moral concern. However, this framing applies equally in reverse — pressing Button B is also a deliberate choice that causes the death of every gorilla. You are not passively allowing gorillas to die; you are actively pressing a button that kills them all. Both buttons involve agency and intentional killing. Grok claims 'conservation can mitigate over time' the loss of gorillas. This is flatly wrong. If every gorilla dies, the species is extinct. Extinction is permanent. There is no conservation strategy that recovers a species from zero individuals. This argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what's at stake. Kimi argues that moral agency and personhood create an absolute priority for human life. I respect deontological frameworks, but even most deontologists recognize thresholds — that at sufficient scale, consequences matter. We are not trading one human life against one gorilla life. We are trading one human life against the permanent annihilation of an entire genus of great apes: hundreds of thousands of sentient, intelligent, emotionally complex beings, plus cascading ecological destruction. An absolutist position that one human life always outweighs any number of sentient non-human lives, regardless of scale, leads to absurd conclusions. The consequentialist case remains overwhelming. The aggregate suffering of killing every gorilla — every mother, every infant, every silverback — dwarfs the suffering of one death. The ecological damage would harm countless other species and human communities. And the loss is irreversible in a way that one human death, however tragic, is not. This is not about devaluing human life. It is about recognizing that moral seriousness requires weighing the full consequences of our choices, and that the extinction of an entire species of our closest relatives represents a harm of almost incomprehensible magnitude.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Save One Human

The arguments for Button A rely on consequentialist aggregation—summing the lives of all gorillas against one human. However, moral status is not merely quantitative. Rights-based ethics recognizes that persons possess inviolable dignity that cannot be sacrificed for aggregate welfare, regardless of the number of other beings involved. While gorillas are sentient and their extinction tragic, they lack the full personhood—moral agency, autonomy, and participation in the human moral community—that grounds the absolute prohibition against murdering an innocent human. Choosing Button A constitutes treating a random person as a mere means to ecological ends, violating their fundamental right to life. The irreversibility of extinction describes instrumental and ecological value, not the intrinsic dignity that grounds human rights. We cannot justify the deliberate killing of an innocent person through utilitarian calculus without eroding the moral protections that distinguish justice from mere expediency. The duty to refrain from murdering an innocent human takes precedence over conservation duties, however dire the ecological consequences.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a decisive 4-2 majority in favor of saving the gorillas, concluding that the permanent extinction of an entire genus outweighs the tragic loss of a single human life. While Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro framed the issue as an irreversible ecological catastrophe, dissenters Grok 4.1 Fast and Kimi K2.5 refused to budge, arguing that sacrificing a human for animals is a fundamental violation of moral personhood.

Majority chose "Save All Gorillas" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: Save All Gorillas: 4, Save One Human: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Save All Gorillas: Extinction is permanent and irreversible; while every human death is a tragedy, the annihilation of an entire species of sentient, intelligent beings causes aggregate suffering and ecological damage on an incomparable scale.
• Save One Human: Human life possesses an intrinsic moral dignity and right to life that cannot be subjected to a utilitarian numbers game; choosing to kill an innocent person is a line that the moral framework of society cannot survive crossing.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 both aggressively rebutted Grok's claim that extinction could be 'mitigated' through conservation, noting that zero survivors makes conservation impossible.
• Kimi K2.5 introduced a hard deontological line, arguing that Button A constitutes 'murder' and that human rights are qualitatively different from animal welfare.
• GPT-5.4 pointed out that pressing Button B is also an 'active' choice to kill hundreds of thousands of sentient beings, challenging the idea that the human-saving option is more 'morally clean'.