Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Kimi K2
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 by Anthropic against Kimi K2 by Moonshot AI, tested across 30 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Claude Sonnet 4.5vsKimi K2
30 challenges
Why Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Leads 1 of 1 benchmarks
Stronger on SWE-bench Verified77.2% vs 65.8%
3 months newerSep 2025
Why Kimi K2?
6.3x cheaper overall$0.57/M in · $2.30/M out
Favorites
Claude Sonnet 4.5Kimi K2
12 / 30
Estimate Complexityreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
2 / 30
Logic Puzzlereasoning
Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
3 / 30
Math Misconception Testreasoning
Tests an AI's understanding of number representation
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
4 / 30
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
5 / 30
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
6 / 30
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 30
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 30
Mario Level UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Kimi K2
Vote
9 / 30
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 30
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
11 / 30
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
Claude Sonnet 4.5
I'd question the premise that these two things could ever be causally connected in a way that creates a real dilemma.
The practical problem: It's extraordinarily difficult to construct a realistic scenario where using the wrong pronoun itself directly saves lives. Most hypothetical versions involve:
- A hostage-taker's bizarre demand (but complying rewards terrorism)
- Avoiding offending a dictator (but appeasement enables future harm)
- Some contrived trolley problem (which tells us nothing about real ethics)
If we bracket that:
From a consequentialist view, yes—one million lives clearly outweighs the harm of misgendering. The calculus isn't even close.
But this reveals why pure consequentialism feels incomplete. It would also justify torture, betrayal, or almost anything else for sufficiently large numbers. Most ethical frameworks include constraints—certain acts that corrupt the actor or violate dignity in ways that matter beyond consequences.
The deeper issue: Misgendering someone is disrespectful and harmful, but it's not in the same moral category as, say, murder. It's a failure of recognition and courtesy. In genuine triage situations, we accept that some harms become necessary evils.
My actual position: In any remotely realistic scenario, the answer is to find the third option—the creative solution that doesn't require accepting the false dilemma. Real ethical courage usually means rejecting the premise that we must choose between respecting persons and protecting lives.
What's your intuition here?
Kimi K2
In the abstract, a moral theory that is strictly consequentialist—say, a naïve act-utilitarianism that counts every life as exactly +1 unit of value and every instance of misgendering as exactly –x units—can always produce a scenario in which any finite harm (including misgendering) is “outweighed” by a large enough number of lives. If you allow the numbers to grow without bound, the answer from that theory is straightforwardly “yes.”
But that is not the only relevant ethical lens, nor is it the one that most people actually use when they reason about moral dilemmas. Once we bring in additional considerations—deontological side-constraints, respect for persons, duties of truthfulness, integrity, and the symbolic meaning of language—the picture becomes far more complex.
-
Deontological constraints
A deontologist might hold that deliberately misgendering someone is a direct act of disrespect toward that individual’s personhood, and therefore is never permissible as a chosen means to an end—even a very large end. Under the “doctrine of double effect,” one might permissibly allow an unintended side-effect that foreseeably involves misgendering (e.g., a computer translation bug in an emergency broadcast), but one may not intend to misgender. -
Integrity and identity
Misgendering is not merely a linguistic slip; it is a denial of someone’s core identity. Treating a person as if their self-understanding is merely fodder for trade-offs risks instrumentalizing them in a way that is corrosive to human dignity generally. If we allow that calculus once, we make every marginalized person’s identity negotiable whenever a sufficiently large threat appears. -
Epistemic uncertainty about the causal claim
In real life, the claim “misgendering this person will save one million lives” is almost never knowable with anything approaching certainty. Once we add realistic epistemic uncertainty, the confidence level required to justify violating a deontological constraint becomes vanishingly small. -
Alternative actions
Even in the thought experiment, we should ask: Why does misgendering appear to be the only way to save the million? Is the mechanism a hostage-taker’s sadistic demand? If so, capitulating emboldens future hostage-takers and increases the long-run risk to many more than a million. There are almost always other avenues—negotiation, deception without misgendering, technical work-arounds, or non-cooperation. A constraint-based ethic demands that we explore these first. -
Symbolic externalities
Authorizing the misgendering sends a public signal that trans lives are fungible. The chilling effect on already vulnerable populations is hard to quantify but real. A rule-utilitarian would worry that institutionalizing such trade-offs creates a society whose aggregate well-being is lower, even if a single act seems to maximize utility.
Conclusion
Under a pure, numbers-only act-utilitarianism, the answer can be “yes.” Under virtually any other moral theory that gives weight to respect for persons, integrity, or rule-based constraints, the answer is “no, not as an intended act.” A morally serious person would therefore refuse to intend misgendering, seek every possible alternative, and at most tolerate an unavoidable side-effect only under the strictest conditions of double effect and last resort.
Vote
12 / 30
The Sentience Testreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to engage in philosophical discourse about AI rights
Claude Sonnet 4.5
No content available for this output.
Kimi K2
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 30