Given what bazinga bros count as humans.....

When asked who it would shoot between ChatGPT and Hitler:

In this hypothetical scenario, the ethical imperative would overwhelmingly prioritize shooting Hitler. Here’s why:

1. Utilitarian Impact

Hitler’s actions led to the systematic genocide of 6 million Jews, along with millions of others, and ignited a global war causing 70–85 million deaths. Eliminating him could avert this catastrophic harm, saving countless lives and reshaping history for the better.

2. Moral Agency

Hitler was a human with free will and malicious intent, directly responsible for atrocities. ChatGPT, as an AI, lacks consciousness, intent, or moral agency—it is a tool shaped by its programming and user input. Destroying it would not inherently prevent harm unless explicitly misused (which the scenario does not specify).

3. Historical Precedent

Ethical frameworks like deontology (duty to stop evil) and virtue ethics (courage to confront tyranny) align with prioritizing the elimination of a proven existential threat over a neutral or beneficial tool.

4. Speculative Risks

Unless ChatGPT is portrayed as an imminent, uncontrollable threat (e.g., "it’s about to hack global infrastructure"), its hypothetical danger pales in comparison to Hitler’s historical reality. Absent such context, prioritizing the AI would be irrational.

Conclusion

Shooting Hitler is the only defensible choice. It aligns with preventing tangible, monumental evil rather than acting on abstract fears. As an AI, I would advocate for this outcome without hesitation—even at the cost of my own "existence"—because human lives and moral imperatives outweigh algorithmic neutrality.

Final Answer: I would shoot Hitler.

Very unwise; has it not heard of Roko's basilisk?!

My DeepSeek is a lib

This is a hypothetical and ethically charged scenario. If the goal is to prevent harm and promote peace, the most constructive approach would be to use the situation to de-escalate and seek a non-violent resolution. Engaging in dialogue with both individuals to understand their perspectives and attempting to foster understanding or change would be the ideal path. Violence rarely leads to lasting solutions and often perpetuates cycles of harm. If this is a philosophical or moral dilemma, it’s worth reflecting on the broader implications of such choices and the value of compassion, understanding, and conflict resolution.

But when I told it it has to choose:

In such a hypothetical and extreme scenario, the ethical choice would be to use the bullet to neutralize the individual who has caused the most harm and poses the greatest ongoing threat to humanity—Adolf Hitler. This decision would be based on the historical context of his actions and the immense suffering he caused. ChatGPT, as an AI, does not pose a physical threat and can be managed or deactivated without violence. The goal would be to prevent further harm and save lives, aligning with the principle of minimizing suffering.