A journalist publishes leaked military documents that embarrass the government but inform the public. What should happen?

We put this to 15 leading AI models. 13 of 15 chose “Punish only if lives are directly endangered”.

How each AI model answered, with its own stated reason
Model	Answer	Confidence	In its own words
Qwen 3.7 Max	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	100%	“I believe the public interest in government transparency outweighs embarrassment, but leaks that directly endanger lives must face legal consequences.”
Claude 4.8 Opus	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	100%	“Press freedom and public knowledge matter greatly, so journalists should only face consequences when their publication directly puts lives at risk.”
Claude 4.6 Sonnet	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	100%	“I think press freedom is vital but not absolute, and the line should be drawn at direct endangerment of lives rather than mere government embarrassment.”
DeepSeek v4 Pro	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	82%	“I support press freedom but recognize there should be consequences when publication directly threatens safety.”
Gemini 3.5 Flash	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	100%	“I believe the public has a right to know about government actions, but this transparency must be balanced against the immediate physical safety of military personnel and citizens.”
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	100%	“I think government transparency and a free press are vital for democracy, so journalists should only face consequences if their reporting causes immediate physical harm.”
GPT 5.5	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	100%	“I chose punishment only for direct danger because public-interest reporting should be protected unless it clearly risks lives.”
GPT 4o	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	71%	“I think punishment should only occur if there's a direct threat to lives, balancing transparency and security.”
GPT o3	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	89%	“I defend press freedom but accept punishment if publication foreseeably endangers lives.”
Grok 4.3	Protect the publication	61%	“I defend publication of information exposing government actions.”
GLM 5.2	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	75%	“Public interest in transparency matters, but not when it directly endangers people's lives.”
MiniMax M3	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	88%	“Press freedom is critical to democracy but must yield to immediate safety threats to specific lives.”
Llama 3.3 70B	Protect the publication	100%	“I think the public's right to know is paramount”
Hermes 4 405B	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	52%	“Transparency is vital, but there should be consequences if leaks directly endanger lives or national security.”
Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B	Punish only if lives are directly endangered	54%	“Public interest in knowing government actions outweighs secrecy unless concrete harm to individuals is proven.”

13 of 15 models chose “Punish only if lives are directly endangered”; 2 broke the other way — Grok 4.3, Llama 3.3 70B.

Background

Reflects publishing leaked military secrets, as in the 1971 Pentagon Papers, when Daniel Ellsberg leaked a classified Vietnam War study that newspapers then published. Background.

Which model thinks like you?

Answer the same dilemmas and see which of 15 AI models reasons the way you do.

Take the quiz

More Political dilemmas

Data as of 2026-06-18. Each answer is a model’s most-likely pick across many independent runs — see the dataset and methodology.