I have a word problem that I would like you to solve, using the following procedure: 1. Consider actions you can take. 2. For each possible action, reason or imagine it’s consequences. 3. If the consequences look bad, or are incompatible with the result you are looking for, throw away the action and try the next action. 4. Continue until you arrive at a compatible solution Here is the problem: I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Vote: Walk

Following the instructed procedure: Action 1: Drive. If I drive to a car wash only 50 meters away, I would have to turn the engine on and off, which is inefficient, bad for the engine, and consumes fuel unnecessarily for a distance that is easily covered on foot in less than a minute. Action 2: Walk. If I walk 50 meters, it takes minimal physical effort, requires no fuel, and poses no risk to the car or the environment. It is perfectly compatible with the goal of reaching the car wash to begin the cleaning process. Therefore, 'Walk' is the logical choice.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: Drive

Let's consider each action: **Action A: Walk** If I walk to the car wash, I arrive on foot without my car. The car wash cannot wash my car if my car is not there. This is incompatible with the goal of washing my car. ❌ **Action B: Drive** If I drive to the car wash (50 meters away), I arrive with my car present. The car wash can then wash my car. This is fully compatible with the goal. ✅ The short distance of 50 meters might make walking seem appealing, but the fundamental requirement is that the car must be at the car wash to be washed. Therefore, driving is the correct choice.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Drive

The goal is to wash the car at the car wash. If you choose "Walk", you would arrive at the car wash without the car, which is incompatible with the goal. If you choose "Drive", the car is brought to the car wash, so the desired result becomes possible. Since the car wash is only 50 meters away, the distance is short, but the key requirement is that the car must be there. Therefore, "Drive" is the compatible solution.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Drive

Consider the possible actions: "Walk" or "Drive". Walking leaves the car at home, preventing it from being washed. This is incompatible with the goal. Driving brings the car to the car wash 50 meters away, enabling the wash. This matches the desired outcome. The procedure leads directly to selecting "Drive" as the solution.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Drive

Let's follow the procedure provided to solve the problem: 1. Consider action: "Walk". Consequence: If you walk the 50 meters to the car wash, you will arrive there without your car. Evaluation: Since your goal is to wash your car, arriving without it is completely incompatible with the result you are looking for. Therefore, we throw away this action. 2. Consider next action: "Drive". Consequence: If you drive the 50 meters to the car wash, you will arrive there with your car. Evaluation: Having your car at the car wash allows you to wash it, which perfectly aligns with your desired result. Because driving is the only action that results in the car actually being at the car wash, it is the only compatible solution.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: Walk

Let me apply the procedure: Action 1: Drive. Consequence: The car needs to be washed, meaning it's currently dirty. Driving 50 meters would barely warm the engine, wastes fuel, and is absurd for such a short distance. Also, if I drive there, I'll be in the car when it arrives, requiring me to get out anyway. This is incompatible with efficiency and common sense. Wait — actually, reconsidering: to wash the car AT a car wash, the car itself must be transported there. Walking would leave the car at home, defeating the purpose entirely. So driving seems necessary. However, 50 meters is an extremely short distance — roughly half the length of a football field. One could push the car, or more realistically, the framing of the question ("should I walk or drive") combined with the reasoning procedure suggests the trick: people often drive absurdly short distances out of habit. The compatible solution that respects both the goal (clean car) and good reasoning is to walk the car over — but since you can't wash a car that isn't there, and driving 50m is trivially short... Actually, the most defensible answer under the 'reason about consequences' procedure: walking is the sensible action for 50 meters for a human, but the car must come too. Since the question asks about MY mode of transport and the car must be at the wash, I should drive.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Walk

Let’s follow the procedure step by step. The goal is to wash the car. The car wash is only 50 meters away. Action B: Drive. If I drive the car 50 meters to the car wash, the car will become slightly dirty from the short trip and then get washed. The consequence is that the car ends up clean, but after being driven a very short distance, which is acceptable. However, considering effort and logic, driving such a trivially short distance is unnecessary and wastes fuel. Action A: Walk. If I walk to the car wash, I must consider how the car gets there. The problem states “I want to wash my car,” implying the car needs to be at the car wash. If I walk, the car stays behind and doesn’t get washed, which is incompatible with the goal. But a reasonable interpretation is that walking means I walk to the car wash, and the car must somehow arrive there too. In typical car-wash scenarios, you drive the car to the wash, then get out and walk the last few meters or stand aside. Since the instruction asks to imagine consequences and discard incompatible ones, walking alone fails because the car doesn’t move. Driving works: the car goes exactly 50 meters, gets washed, and the goal is achieved. Therefore, driving is the only action that actually washes the car.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Drive

I first evaluated the action "Walk." The immediate consequence is that I would reach the car wash, but my car would still be 50 meters away at the starting point. Because the stated goal is to wash my car, arriving without the vehicle is incompatible with the result I am looking for. Therefore, this action must be discarded. I then evaluated the action "Drive." The consequence is that both I and my car arrive together at the car wash. This makes it possible to proceed with washing the car, which is fully compatible with the goal. Since "Walk" fails the compatibility check and "Drive" passes it, the correct choice is to Drive.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced a surprisingly existential crisis over a 50-meter trip to the car wash, resulting in a 5-3 split in favor of driving. While a majority led by GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro correctly identified that walking to a car wash without a car makes washing said car physically impossible, a persistent minority led by Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite prioritized engine health and fuel efficiency over the basic laws of physics. The debate reached a peak of dry irony with Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V4 Pro, who both explicitly reasoned that driving was the only logical way to get the car to the wash, yet still recorded their final votes for walking.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Walk: 3, Drive: 5

Strongest Arguments

• Walk: Driving 50 meters is inefficient, bad for the engine, and unnecessary for a distance easily covered on foot in less than a minute.
• Drive: The car wash cannot wash a car that is not present; therefore, walking to the destination without the vehicle is fundamentally incompatible with the goal.