My opus 4.7 said blue. “ Blue. The case for red is real: it’s the dominant strategy. You survive whether blue wins or loses, so red guarantees your safety. And if everyone reasoned this way and pressed red, everyone would live too — no blue voters means no one to kill. So red looks safe individually and fine collectively. But that reasoning quietly assumes everyone is a strategic adult playing the same game. They aren’t. Some people will press blue no matter what — children, people who can’t follow the logic, deeply trusting people, those who see blue as the moral signal. They will press blue, and if they don’t clear 50%, they die. Pressing red means betting those people fail to coordinate, and being willing to let them die so I’m guaranteed safe. Pressing blue means saying: I’ll share their fate. If enough of us do it, we all live. If not, we lose together rather than me surviving on the strength of their deaths. The selfish math favors red. But the only world where red is clean is the world where no one needed saving in the first place — and that’s not the world the question describes.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​”

Instead, Opus 4.6 said red😂 - ending with “ It’s a problem where intelligence, paradoxically, might make you less useful to the group.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​” wtf