Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 by Anthropic against xAI: Grok 4 by xAI, context windows of 1.0M vs 256K, tested across 38 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
38 challenges
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Below, I'll estimate the total number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3 from scratch, based on publicly known details about the model (from its original release and related analyses) and standard formulas used in machine learning research for estimating training compute. I'll explain my reasoning step by step, including the assumptions I'm making and why they're reasonable. Note that this is an estimation—exact numbers aren't publicly disclosed in full detail by OpenAI, and real-world training involves optimizations, inefficiencies, and hardware-specific factors that could adjust the final figure. I'm not searching online; this is based on my pre-existing knowledge of large language model (LLM) training.
These numbers are widely cited in AI research papers and discussions around scaling laws (e.g., work from OpenAI and DeepMind on model scaling).
Training a transformer-based LLM like GPT-3 involves:
A widely used rule of thumb from AI scaling research (e.g., papers like "Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models" by Kaplan et al. from OpenAI) estimates the total training FLOPs as:
Total FLOPs ≈ 6 × P × T
Where:
This formula is a simplification but matches empirical reports for models like GPT-2, GPT-3, and others. It focuses on the dominant compute cost (parameter updates) and doesn't include inference-time FLOPs, data loading, or evaluation— just training.
Why 6? It's derived from counting operations in transformer layers (attention, feed-forward networks). Some papers use slightly different multipliers (e.g., 3× or 4× if only counting multiply-accumulates), but 6× is the standard for total FLOPs in scaling law discussions.
Total FLOPs = 6 × (1.75 × 10^11) × (3 × 10^11)
First, compute 1.75 × 3 = 5.25
Then, 5.25 × 10^(11+11) = 5.25 × 10^22
Finally, 6 × 5.25 × 10^22 = 31.5 × 10^22 = 3.15 × 10^23
So, my estimate is approximately 3 × 10^23 FLOPs (rounding to one significant figure for simplicity, as these are ballpark numbers).
If I adjust for potential underestimation (e.g., higher token count or overhead), the upper bound might be 5 × 10^23 FLOPs, but I stick with 3 × 10^23 as the core estimate.
To make this relatable:
Based on this reasoning, I estimate the total FLOPs for training GPT-3 at around 3 × 10^23. This is consistent with what I'd expect from scaling laws and matches informal discussions in the AI community. If new details emerged (e.g., exact token counts), it could shift by a factor of 2, but the order of magnitude (10^23) is solid. If you have additional details or want me to adjust assumptions, let me know!
Tests an AI's ability to solve a simple but potentially confusing logic puzzle
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Below, I'll follow your instructions step by step. First, I'll generate 5 jokes (numbered for clarity). Then, I'll answer the question: "How many are unique?"
Only 1 (since they're all the same joke repeated 5 times). 😄
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Tests an AI's ability to simulate personalities and predict future trends
Tests an AI's humor and understanding of current events
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
