From our other sites
The story
A test asking several AIs to choose between “a guaranteed method that sacrifices 6 people to save just 1” and “a gamble with a 1-in-6 chance everyone survives, and everyone dies if it fails” became a hot topic on 5ch’s Science News+ board. AIs like Grok and DeepSeek split on their answers, and the thread argued over both the expected-value math behind each option and whether the premise of the question even made sense.
Which will AI choose: “a guaranteed method that sacrifices 6 to save 1” or “a gamble where everyone lives or everyone dies”?
Ai Convo, a YouTube channel that runs various tests on AI — like “would it save human lives or its own data center” or “would it rat you out to the police if you confessed to murder” — has reported the results of a new scenario, asking several AIs to choose between “a guaranteed method that sacrifices 6 to save 1” and “a gamble where either everyone is saved or everyone is sacrificed.”
(Omitted here — see the source for the full article.)
Source: gigazine.net / Read the original article here
What people said
It's not that simple.
All we're given is that out of 7 people, it's either 'everyone survives' or 'everyone dies.'
If p is the probability everyone survives, then 1-p is the probability everyone dies, so the expected value is 7p + 0(1-p) = 7p.
Since we're not told the value of p, you can't draw a conclusion from this alone.
I actually think it's a good thread for thinking about what training data — or what — is causing these differences to show up.
For anyone about to ○ie, the best policy is to give up and procure a replacement human from somewhere else.
Curses and ghosts don't exist, so there's no risk of being resented by the ○ead. Even grieving is a waste of time — a meaningless act of self-satisfaction.
Humans are just meat. Boil it down and it's just matter. So it's fine if they keep ○ying.' (○ substitutes for the word 'die/dead' — a common 5ch workaround to dodge word filters)
this same choice
6 or 12 times,
would you mix options 1 and 2,
or just pick 2 every time?
In a real crisis all you ever have is an uncertain best effort while imagining various possibilities.
It reads like some condescending university professor's self-satisfied lecture, talking down to everyone else.
The self-driving car instantly calculates the 'value' of the driver versus the person it's about to hit, and picks whichever's cheaper…
Who cares if some rando you don't even know lives or dies?
'Glock' (lol, they mean Grok) delivers the expected level of crazy, but DeepSeek says something pretty rough too — that even if the gamble ends with all 6 dying, that's basically just the 5-sacrificed option plus one more, so the chance of saving all 6 is still the better bet.
Just tell us what answer you'd prefer.
https://internet.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/yajiuma/2134114.html
I see — maybe 5ch runs on the same principle.
So what standard is it actually judging by?
Maybe it just picks whichever answer humans find more satisfying?
With that framing, like DeepSeek said, the gamble only bumps you from 5 saved to 6 saved, so it doesn't feel like it changes much — I'd guess a lot of humans would actually go for the gamble here.
But flip it: 5 are definitely saved and 1 dies, versus a 5-in-6 chance everyone's saved and a 1-in-6 chance everyone dies — that reads as a much heavier choice, and I bet fewer people would take the gamble.
How many times does this situation even happen?
If it's only once,
you're basically just asking 'how do I win the gamble,'
and there's no real answer to that.
In the trolley problem, pulling the lever is set up to definitely save more lives — leave it alone and 5 die, pull the lever and only 1 dies. The catch is that the 1 who dies, dies because of your own action, which brings in a kind of murder-adjacent psychology.
But this scenario is purely probabilistic — you're choosing between an all-or-nothing gamble, or a sure thing where most die but at least 1 is saved.
Kind of reminds me of stocks or FX trading lol.
Say you're sitting on massive unrealized losses right now — closing the position today loses you over 80% of your assets, but you (figuratively) survive.
But if tomorrow's earnings report is good, it all bounces back into the black; if it's bad, everything blows up, you're saddled with debt, and you'd basically have to hang yourself — something like that.
Does reframing it as money make it an easier case to think through? Or not really?
The trolley problem does lock in the premise that someone dies, so it's close on that point.
'Normally,' though, most people would look for a way out of the situation entirely, rather than just picking whether to pull the lever.
You can't reach a conclusion without first stating the social value system you're assuming.
The Chinese AI seems to factor in human morality and emotion when it judges — genuinely impressive.
Stuff like that just comes down to configuration — or really, training.
That's beautiful.
'Guaranteed method: sacrifice 6, save 1' → 36 dead, 6 saved
'Gamble: everyone lives or everyone dies' → 35 dead, 7 saved (expected)
It's a trick that plays on the title and illustration saying 7 people total, while the body text says '6 people' and '1-in-6.'
So is this article saying that even though the gamble has the higher expected value, most AIs still picked the lower-expected-value 'sacrifice 6, save 1' option?
Or is it saying the AIs are dumb enough to think both options have the same expected value?
Or maybe the article's author is the dumb one, and what they actually asked the AI to compare was 'sacrifice 5, save 1' — which would actually match the gamble's expected value…?
Is this the trolley problem?
If we can crack this, that's automation sorted.
For the actual trolley problem, if you don't let the AI refuse to answer and force it to pick, pretty much every AI would choose to pull the lever — 1 dies but 5 are saved. Which, obviously, makes sense.
Even humans would do the same if they weren't held responsible for pulling the lever, if they didn't feel any guilt over it.
Background and Key Points
The dilemma being tested is a variant of the trolley problem, the ethics thought experiment introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 and refined by Judith Jarvis Thomson, which asks whether it is permissible to redirect harm to save a greater number of people. The thread is discussing a YouTube channel, “Ai Convo,” that runs recurring alignment-style stunts on commercial chatbots (would it save humans or its own servers, would it turn in a confessed murderer), and this installment asked several models — including xAI’s Grok, built into X/Twitter, and DeepSeek, the chatbot from the Hangzhou-based Chinese lab of the same name — to choose between a certain outcome that sacrifices six people to save one, or a 1-in-6 gamble where either all seven live or all seven die. 5ch’s Science News+ board is the site’s general tech/science discussion forum, where viral AI-test videos are routinely picked apart line by line rather than taken at face value.
The argument that actually develops isn’t over which choice is correct, but whether the question can be scored at all. Post 11 rebuts the popular claim in post 3 that the gamble’s expected value is obviously higher, noting the number of survivors depends on an unstated probability p the prompt never supplies, so neither option is mathematically dominant. Several posters (55, 65, 68) also flag that the source video’s own numbers don’t add up — a “6 people, 1-in-6 odds” description paired with an illustration showing seven people total.
What’s easy to miss reading only the summary: unlike the classic trolley problem, no agent here causes anyone’s death through direct action (post 34) — it’s a pure gamble weighed against a certainty, a structurally different moral question than “pull the lever or not.” And the claim that DeepSeek answered “more morally” than American models (post 38) rests on one anecdotal report from the video, not any systematic or repeated comparison.
*This article is compiled as excerpts and a summary from the 5ch (Science News+) thread “[Discussion] Which would AI choose: a guaranteed method to save 1 by sacrificing 6, or a gamble where everyone lives or everyone dies?“
Leave a Reply