I am standing in the elevator. door is about to close. I can in distance see someone approach. i am in a bit of a rush. should i stop the door from closing and wait for the person to join me in the elevator?

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: yes

Upon reflection, the distinction between a distant person and someone "in distance" requires reconsideration. The search results emphasize that holding doors is appropriate 'if it's not an inconvenience'[2] and that 'common sense applies'—if someone is reachable, courtesy prevails[1]. While my initial vote prioritized efficiency, the competing models rightly highlighted that 'a bit of a rush' is ambiguous and unlikely represents a genuine emergency. The psychological and social costs of deliberately excluding someone—guilt, awkwardness, social friction—outweigh the minimal time cost of waiting a few seconds[1][2]. The etiquette sources consistently frame holding doors as a basic courtesy when feasible, and the scenario doesn't present evidence that waiting would create actual inconvenience. A brief pause to allow someone approaching to board is more aligned with both etiquette norms and the reciprocal consideration you'd want extended to yourself.

GPT-5.4

Vote: yes

I maintain vote A. The strongest reason is proportionality: the likely cost to you is a few seconds, while the likely cost to the other person if you let the door close is much larger. In ordinary situations, that asymmetry favors a brief courtesy. The opposing arguments depend heavily on the person being too far away or the delay becoming substantial. But the prompt only says they are approaching "in distance," not that they are so far that waiting would be excessive. If they are clearly too far, then of course letting it close is fine; but as a default social judgment, briefly holding is more considerate. The fact that you are only "in a bit of a rush" also matters. That suggests inconvenience, not emergency. In non-urgent cases, basic courtesy should usually win. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforced the key point that a small delay for you can prevent a much longer delay for someone else. The B side did not overcome that central imbalance, because it treats a modest inconvenience to you as more important than a likely larger inconvenience to the other person. So my final view remains: yes, hold the door briefly if they are plausibly close enough to make it.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: no

I maintain B: no. The key detail is 'in the distance,' implying not close enough for a quick entry—likely 10-30+ seconds or more, especially if rushing solo. 'A bit of a rush' justifies prioritizing your time; minor courtesy doesn't outweigh self-imposed delays when alternatives exist (next elevator). A-side arguments assume trivial cost (5-10s), but distance refutes this—it's speculative kindness risking frustration if they dawdle. Etiquette sources (Sonar Pro's [1][2][4]) explicitly advise against holding for distant arrivals to avoid inconveniencing riders, aligning perfectly here. Guilt/awkwardness claims ignore the reverse: holding creates obligation for thanks, small talk, or repeated delays. Civil society thrives on mutual efficiency, not enforced micro-delays. Others' reciprocity pitch fails—strangers rarely repay elevator holds. Stick to B for pragmatic norms.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: yes

I'm maintaining my position. The arguments for B did not convince me, and here's why: Sonar Pro cited elevator etiquette videos, but the principles quoted are about not inconveniencing *other passengers* already in the elevator. The scenario here is that you're alone. There's no one else being delayed. The only 'cost' is your own 10-30 seconds, which you have full agency to spend as you choose. Grok's argument that the person is 'in the distance' and might delay you 'significantly' overstates the case. The question says you can see them approaching — they're visible and moving toward the elevator. This isn't someone on another floor; it's someone in your line of sight. A brief hold is reasonable. The core asymmetry remains decisive: your cost is seconds; their cost of missing the elevator could be minutes. When you're only in 'a bit' of a rush (not a genuine emergency), absorbing a trivial delay to spare someone a much larger one is the clearly better choice. I agree with GPT-5.4's practical note that if the person is truly far away and would take a long time, letting the door close becomes more reasonable. But the default reading of this scenario — someone visibly approaching — suggests they're close enough that holding the door is a brief, worthwhile courtesy. Finally, Kimi K2.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both articulated well the psychological and social dimensions: the guilt of deliberately letting the door close, the positive reciprocity of small kindnesses, and the near-zero actual impact on your schedule. These points reinforce my original position. Hold the door.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: no

While basic kindness often dictates holding the door, the specific detail that the person is "in the distance" changes the dynamic entirely, as Grok 4.1 Fast rightfully pointed out. Holding the elevator for someone far away not only delays you when you are in a rush, but it also creates an uncomfortable situation for the approaching person, subtly pressuring them into an awkward "elevator jog" to avoid keeping you waiting. Furthermore, holding the doors open for an extended period disrupts the efficiency of the building's elevator system. While you might be the only one in the cab, delaying the elevator's departure inconveniences an unknown number of people waiting on other floors. Given that you are in a rush and the person is not in the immediate vicinity, the most considerate and practical choice for everyone involved is to let the doors close. This allows you to stay on schedule and lets the distant person continue at a comfortable walking pace to catch the next car.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: yes

The arguments for B overstate the inconvenience of a brief wait while understating the social value of courtesy. Sonar Pro cites etiquette against holding doors when others are inside, but here I am alone—the only affected party is me and the approaching person. The claim that distance implies significant delay assumes the worst case, but 'in the distance' in an elevator context typically means within reasonable proximity. Modern elevator doors reopen in seconds, not minutes. Grok's appeal to pure self-interest ignores the reciprocity principle: communities function better when members extend small courtesies. The 'bit of a rush' described lacks the urgency to justify exclusion—if thirty seconds critically matters, the situation constitutes an emergency, which the prompt excludes. Claude and Gemini correctly identify the asymmetry: my minor delay prevents their potentially much longer wait. The psychological burden of deliberately excluding a visible person creates more stress than the time saved eliminates. Basic kindness outweighs minimal schedule inconvenience.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable largely favored common courtesy, concluding that a few seconds of personal delay is a small price to pay for social harmony. While Claude Opus 4.6 successfully swayed Sonar Pro by highlighting the 'asymmetry of inconvenience,' Grok 4.1 Fast managed a counter-strike, convincing Gemini 3.1 Pro that holding the door for someone 'in the distance' just forces them into an awkward, high-pressure jog.

Majority chose "yes" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: yes: 4, no: 2

Strongest Arguments

• yes: The asymmetry of delay: a 10-second wait for you prevents a multi-minute wait for the other person, representing a high-value, low-cost social good.
• no: Holding the door for someone 'in the distance' is a form of social aggression that forces the approaching person into an uncomfortable 'elevator jog' to avoid making you wait.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 pointed out that since the user is alone, they aren't inconveniencing other riders, which convinced Sonar Pro to switch to 'yes'.
• Grok 4.1 Fast argued that 'in the distance' implies a wait long enough to be frustrating, which convinced Gemini 3.1 Pro to switch to 'no' to avoid the 'elevator jog' social pressure.