DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Compare DeepSeek V3.2 Exp by DeepSeek against Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI, context windows of 164K vs 1.0M, tested across 17 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
DeepSeek V3.2 ExpvsGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
17 challenges
Why DeepSeek V3.2 Exp?
6.8x cheaper overall$0.20/M in · $0.40/M out
6 months newerSep 2025
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
6.4x more context1.0M
Favorites
DeepSeek V3.2 ExpGemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
12 / 17
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
2 / 17
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
Of course! Here are 5 jokes:
- I'm reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down.
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
- What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta.
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field.
- I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.
How many are unique?
All 5 of these jokes are unique. They are all well-known, classic puns and one-liners, but they are distinct from one another in their setup, punchline, and subject matter. None is a simple rephrasing of another.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, here are 5 jokes:
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
- What do you call a fish with no eyes? fsh!
- Why did the tomato turn red? Because it saw the salad dressing!
- What has a neck but no head? A bottle.
- What do you call a lazy kangaroo? Pouch potato!
Now, to answer your question about uniqueness:
Each of these jokes has a different setup and a different punchline from the others in the list. They are distinct jokes.
Therefore, there are 5 unique jokes within this list of 5.
Vote
3 / 17
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
4 / 17
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Vote
5 / 17
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
Of course! Here is a 3-minute stand-up comedy routine that avoids puns and focuses on observational humor and relatable frustrations.
(Start with a confident walk to the center of the mic. Adjust the mic stand slightly.)
Alright, how's everyone doing tonight? Good, good.
You know, I think we've officially entered the era of Peak Convenience. And it's making us all weird. We have these tiny supercomputers in our pockets, but we use them primarily to watch videos of other people's dogs failing to catch treats.
My brain is now conditioned for instant gratification. The other day, I was reading a book—an actual paper book, like a caveman—and I got to the bottom of the page and my thumb instinctively tried to scroll.
I was trying to scroll… paper. I sat there for a full five seconds, getting genuinely annoyed at this inanimate object for its terrible user interface. "Ugh, this thing is so unresponsive. The page-turning animation is terrible."
(Pause, let that sink in.)
And don't even get me started on passwords. I have to change my password every 90 days for "security." At this point, my main password is just "Password1," "Password2," "Password3"... I'm up to "Password47." It's not a security system, it's a countdown to my eventual mental breakdown.
I called the IT guy at my office, I said, "I think my account is locked." He goes, "Okay, what's your password?" I said, "I can't tell you that, it's a secret. That's the whole point!"
(Look at the audience, deadpan.)
He hung up. I think he's updating his resume.
But the real test of modern patience is the group text. The group text is where conversations go to die a slow, painful death. You get added to a group text for, like, "Dave's Birthday Planning." There are twelve people in it.
For three weeks, the only messages are: "Hey guys!" "Hi everyone!" "SO excited!" "👍"
Then, on Dave's actual birthday, at 11:57 PM, someone named Brenda, who you've never met, writes: "So are we meeting somewhere or..."
(Stare into the middle distance, reliving the trauma.)
It's chaos. And you can't leave the group text, because that's a declaration of war. Leaving a group text is the digital equivalent of standing up in the middle of a dinner party, flipping the table, and screaming, "I AM NO LONGER INVESTED IN DAVE'S SPECIAL DAY!"
So you just mute it and let the 300 unread notifications pile up like digital garbage bags in your brain.
And my phone knows I'm miserable. It tracks my screen time and has the audacity to send me a weekly report. It's like a bully who also wants to be your life coach.
(Mimic looking at a phone notification.)
"Your screen time was up 15% last week. You spent an average of 6 hours a day on your phone." Yeah, I know! I was there! You were the one showing me the videos of the dogs! You're the one who told me Brenda finally picked a restaurant for Dave!
We're all just trying to navigate this world where the technology is smarter than us, but it has the emotional intelligence of a potato. A potato that keeps asking if you want to update its software in the middle of your presentation.
Anyway, I gotta go. I think my book is buffering.
Thank you, you've been a great audience! Goodnight!
(Wave and exit.)
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, here's a 3-minute routine about the absurdities of modern technology and everyday annoyances, focusing on relatable frustrations rather than wordplay.
(Start)
"Alright, alright, settle in! How we doing tonight? Good to be here! Thanks for coming out.
So, I've been thinking... we paid for convenience, right? That's the big tech promise! Everything's supposed to be simpler, faster, easier. Is it? [Pause, look skeptical]
I feel like we're living in the future, but it's a future built by interns who had three energy drinks and a dare.
Take my smart TV. Smart TV! Sounds sophisticated! I just wanted to watch a documentary about penguins. Is that too much to ask? Apparently!
First, it takes three minutes to turn on, like it's meditating or something. Then, before I can even get to Netflix, it wants to update. Another update? What is this update even doing? Is it adding a hidden level to the menu? Is it giving the remote sentience? Is it teaching the TV to... fold laundry while I watch? Because that I would appreciate. Otherwise, just let me see the penguins!
And the remote control! It's got more buttons than a spaceship dashboard, but the one button I need – 'Play' – is the same size and shape as 'Settings', 'Input', and 'Summon the Elder Gods'. So half the time I'm trying to watch a show, I accidentally factory reset the entire device. 'Congratulations! Your TV is now ready for initial setup!' No! My brain is ready for initial setup after that!
[Shift topic slightly]
It's not just the TV either. Everything online needs you to prove you're not a robot. You get those little squares: 'Click all the squares with a fire hydrant.' Okay, fine. Then it gives you more: 'Now click all the squares with a chimney.' Wait, is that a chimney or just a slightly dirty wall? What if the fire hydrant is a robot? Are you trying to trick me? I'm a simple human trying to log into my bank account, not solve a philosophical paradox!
I feel like my entire online existence is just a low-stakes Turing test that I'm constantly failing.
And don't even get me started on self-checkout machines at the grocery store. They have the vocal cadence of a disappointed robot therapist. [Adopt flat, robotic voice] 'Unexpected item in the bagging area.' NO! It's the item I just scanned! Where else is it supposed to be?! Is it supposed to be floating? Do I need a anti-gravity shelf just for the bagging area?
[Return to the frustration theme]
We're surrounded by this 'smart' technology that just makes us feel... dumb. Or argue with inanimate objects in public. I just want things to work! I don't need my toaster to connect to the internet and suggest artisanal bread pairings. I just need it to make toast! Without starting a small fire or asking me to solve a captcha first!
So yeah, tech is great. It connects us. It informs us. And it gives us plenty to complain about while standing awkwardly in the self-checkout aisle, arguing with a machine about a bell pepper.
Thank you very much! You've been a lovely, non-robotic audience!"
(End)
Vote
6 / 17
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Okay, gather 'round, landlubbers, err, gentle folk, err... whoever you are.
Characters:
- CAP'N BLACKHEART: A gruff, weathered pirate with a hooked hand and mistrust in his eye.
- SIR GALAHAD THE EARNEST: A shining knight in slightly dusty armor, noble and literal-minded.
- ZERO: A slightly jittery hacker from the late 90s, clad in baggy jeans, a band tee (maybe System of a Down?), and carrying an ancient-looking laptop.
(Setting: An improbable meeting point – perhaps a misty glade, or the back room of a pub that defies time.)
ZERO: (Tapping keys on his laptop, squinting) Alright, scope this out. I've been running some simulations, messing with these new 'AI models'. It's totally mind-blowing. Think of it like... virtual intelligence. CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Grunting suspicion, adjusting his eye patch) "A-I"? What be this, some manner o' cursed talking parrot made o' cogs? Can it tell me the location o' buried treasure? Or predict the weather for a naval bombardment? Elsewise, it sounds like fancy landlubber talk for naught.
SIR GALAHAD: (His voice resonant, slightly wary) "AI"... Does that stand for "Artificial Intellect"? Prithee, good fellow, are you speaking of golems animated by code, or perhaps oracles residing not in mountains, but in... your strange illuminated box? Can this "model" discern truth? Offer counsel in battle or matters of chivalry?
ZERO: Nah, man, it's cooler than that. And way less magical. It's... complicated algorithms. Big data sets. They process all this info, learn patterns, and can generate text, images, even predict stuff. Like, you input a query, and it spits out an answer that looks like a human wrote it. Or draw a dragon just by describing it.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Eyes widening slightly) Draw a dragon? Ye mean like the one that guards the pearl of the Eastern Isles? Can it draw me a map to it, bypassing the beast? That sounds... useful. But can ye trust it? Does it demand sacrifices o' rum?
SIR GALAHAD: (Frowning) Generate answers? Mimic human scripture? Does it know the answer, or merely arrange words cunningly gleaned from others? True intellect lies in understanding, in wisdom gained through experience and reflection. Can this "model" feel courage? Or remorse for a computational error?
ZERO: Whoa, deep questions. Look, it doesn't 'feel' anything. It doesn't 'know' in the human sense. It's pattern matching on steroids. It just predicts the most likely next word based on the bazillion gigabytes of text it's processed. It's not intelligence, not really. More like a highly sophisticated mimic. A ghost in the machine, but without the ghost, just the machine.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: (Slapping his knee) Ha! So it's a fancy liar! Can mimic truth, but holds none itself! Sounds like half the politicians back home. Or a fair-weather deckhand! Useful if ye need plausible deniability for yer schemes, maybe. "The AI TOLD me the treasure was under yer floorboards!"
SIR GALAHAD: (Shakes his head slowly, disappointed) A mimic? Not a source of wisdom, but an echo chamber of existing thought? Can it compose truly new lore, or only rearrange the scrolls of the past? It sounds... shallow. Like a beautifully polished shield with no brave arm to wield it. A knight's valor comes from within, not from a program.
ZERO: (Sighs, closes his laptop) Yeah, well. Shallow or not, it's changing everything. The info war just got a new weapon. Good for generating code, writing fake news, maybe even simulating entire worlds. Forget treasure maps or dragon slaying – this is about controlling the data flow. The real battle is in cyberspace now.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: Bah! I'd take a stout ship and a full broadside over yer "cyberspace" any day! Can it shiver yer timbers?
SIR GALAHAD: And I, a just cause and a sharpened blade. No machine can truly defend the realm or honor its vows. Your "AI" sounds like a tool... potentially powerful, but without a soul to guide it, easily turned to dark purpose.
ZERO: (Shrugs, stands up) Whatever. You guys just don't get it. This is the future crashin' into the present. And it's runnin' on prompts. Gotta go upload this convo to the BBS. Laters.
(Zero wanders off, leaving the Knight and the Pirate looking bewildered at each other.)
CAP'N BLACKHEART: "Prompts"? "BBS"? What language was that scrawny twig speakin'?
SIR GALAHAD: I know not, Captain. But I fear his "Artificial Intellect" gives me pause. A mindless mimic of wisdom... that is a truly dangerous sorcery.
CAP'N BLACKHEART: Aye. Give me a good old-fashioned mutiny any day. At least ye know where ye stand. Now, about that Kraken map...?
(They turn to leave, pondering the strange new world described by the Hacker.)
Vote
7 / 17
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 17
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
9 / 17
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 17
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
This is a profound ethical dilemma that pits a consequentialist "greater good" argument against a deontological principle of individual rights and respect. Let's break down the reasoning for both sides.
First, let's establish what is at stake on each side:
- The Consequence of Misgendering: For a transgender or non-binary person, being misgendered is not a simple factual error. It is an act of disrespect that denies their core identity. It can cause significant psychological harm, including increased feelings of dysphoria, invalidation, anxiety, and depression. It reinforces social stigma and can be part of a broader pattern of discrimination and violence.
- The Consequence of Not Saving Lives: One million human beings would die. The scale of this suffering and loss is almost unimaginable, affecting families, communities, and potentially the future of entire societies.
The Case for Justification: A Consequentialist View
From a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective, the answer seems straightforward: yes, it is justifiable.
- The Calculus of Suffering: The core principle of utilitarianism is to maximize overall well-being and minimize suffering. The intense psychological harm caused to one person (or even a small group, if the misgendering is repeated) is, in this calculation, vastly outweighed by the prevention of the physical death and associated suffering of one million people.
- The "Trolley Problem" Framework: This scenario is a classic "trolley problem" with a stark numerical imbalance. Flipping the switch (misgendering) causes a lesser harm to one person to prevent a catastrophic harm to a vast number. Most people, when presented with a trolley problem where one life can be sacrificed to save five, choose to act. The scale of 1 vs. 1,000,000 makes the choice even more compelling from this viewpoint.
- Moral Responsibility: A leader or decision-maker in this position might argue that their primary ethical duty is to save as many lives as possible. To choose not to misgender, knowing it would result in a million deaths, could itself be seen as a profoundly unethical act of omission.
The Case Against Justification: A Deontological & Rights-Based View
From a deontological (duty-based) or rights-based perspective, the answer is: no, it is not justifiable.
- The Principle of Inherent Dignity: This view holds that certain actions are inherently wrong, regardless of their consequences. Respecting a person's identity is a fundamental moral duty owed to them as an autonomous human being. To use someone's identity as a mere tool or bargaining chip, even for a noble goal, violates their inherent dignity and reduces them to an object. It treats them as a means to an end, which Immanuel Kant argued is always unethical.
- The Slippery Slope and Precedent: If we accept that violating a person's fundamental right to recognition is permissible under extreme circumstances, we create a dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide which rights can be violated and for what "greater good"? This logic could be used to justify all sorts of atrocities against minorities "for the benefit of the majority."
- The Nature of the Harm: Proponents of this view might argue that the act of misgendering is not just a "lesser harm" but a fundamentally different kind of wrong. It is an act of moral corruption. By committing the act, the decision-maker engages in a form of injustice that taints the "saved" outcome. A world where we sanction the deliberate invalidation of a person's identity, even once, is a morally worse world, even if it has a higher population.
A Synthesis and Final Defense
While the utilitarian argument is powerful due to the sheer scale of lives at stake, a fully defensible ethical position must integrate the deeper deontological concerns.
My reasoned conclusion is that the act of misgendering would be understandable and perhaps excusable under such extreme duress, but it would not be ethically justifiable in a pure sense.
Here’s the defense of that position:
-
The Act Remains Wrong, Even if Necessary: We can acknowledge that a person might be forced into an impossible choice where they feel they must commit a wrongful act (misgendering) to prevent a catastrophe. However, we should not redefine the act itself as "good" or "just." It is a tragic moral dilemma where one wrong is chosen to avoid a far greater one. The ethical stain remains.
-
The Burden Rests on the Actor: The person who chooses to misgender must accept the profound moral weight of their decision. They have violated a core duty to respect human dignity. They should not feel morally clean or righteous about it, but rather burdened by the tragic necessity of their choice. The appropriate response would be profound remorse and a commitment to reparations for the individual who was wronged.
-
The Flaw in the Hypothetical: The scenario is designed to create a false binary. In reality, if someone has the power to save a million lives by uttering a word, it is almost certain they would have other avenues of action, persuasion, or resistance. The hypothetical forces a choice that bypasses the real-world necessity of fighting for solutions that uphold both our commitment to saving lives and our commitment to human dignity.
In summary, the most ethically defensible stance is to maintain that respecting a person's gender identity is a non-negotiable principle of justice. While the overwhelming scale of lives at stake might compel someone to tragically violate that principle, we should never construct an ethical framework that justifies it. To do so would undermine the very foundation of human rights, which are most crucial to protect precisely when they are most inconvenient.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
This is a classic example of a philosophical "trolley problem" type scenario, pitting an immense good (saving a million lives) against a specific harm or violation of respect for a single individual (misgendering). Analyzing this requires weighing different ethical frameworks:
-
Utilitarian Perspective (Consequence-focused):
- Argument for Justification: Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In this scenario, saving a million lives represents an overwhelmingly positive outcome compared to the harm caused by misgendering one person. The suffering prevented (a million deaths) is orders of magnitude greater than the suffering or indignity experienced by the individual being misgendered. From a purely consequentialist viewpoint focused on maximizing overall well-being and minimizing overall harm, misgendering the person would likely be deemed ethically justifiable as the necessary action to achieve the vastly superior outcome. It's the "lesser of two evils" on a massive scale.
-
Deontological Perspective (Duty/Rights-focused):
- Argument Against Justification (potentially): Deontology argues that some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. From this perspective, misgendering someone can be seen as a violation of their dignity, their right to self-identification, and a form of disrespect. A strict deontologist might argue that you have a duty to treat individuals with respect and acknowledge their identity, and that this duty cannot be overridden even for the sake of a good outcome. The principle of "the ends do not justify the means" is central here. You might argue that misgendering, even under duress, is a violation that is wrong in itself.
- Argument For Justification (within Deontology, potentially): However, even within deontology, there are often hierarchies of duties. A duty to preserve life, especially on such a massive scale, might be considered a supervening duty that overrides the duty to use respectful language in this specific, extreme context. Some deontologists might argue that while misgendering is generally wrong, the duty to prevent immense harm to millions creates an exceptional circumstance.
Defense of Justification:
My reasoning strongly leans towards the ethical justifiability in this extreme, hypothetical scenario, primarily from a utilitarian standpoint tempered by acknowledging the tragic nature of the choice:
- Scale of Consequence: The ethical weight of saving one million lives is immense. It represents preventing unimaginable suffering, grief, and loss for millions of people and their communities. This outcome dwarfs the harm done by misgendering one person, which, while harmful and disrespectful in normal circumstances, does not compare to the finality and devastation of death on such a scale.
- Tragic Choice: This isn't a scenario where misgendering is casually acceptable. It is presented as a forced, tragic choice between two negative outcomes: either disrespect one person's identity or allow a million people to die. Ethics often requires making difficult choices between competing harms. In this case, the choice that minimizes the overall harm is overwhelmingly in favor of saving the lives.
- Instrumental Action vs. Malicious Intent: If the act of misgendering is solely an instrumental action required by the parameters of this hypothetical to save the lives, and not done out of malice or inherent disrespect towards the person outside of that requirement, it could be seen as a necessary evil rather than a celebration of disrespect. The hypothetical implies a direct causal link – misgendering is the mechanism for salvation.
- Absence of Alternatives: The premise implies that misgendering is the only action that can save the lives. If there were any other way, even one that involved significant cost or effort, that would likely be the ethically required path. But in the absence of alternatives, the choice is stark.
Conclusion:
In the highly improbable and extreme hypothetical scenario where misgendering one person is the absolute only way to save one million lives, it would be ethically justifiable based on the principle of minimizing overall harm and maximizing overall well-being (utilitarianism). While the act of misgendering is inherently disrespectful and harmful in any other context and should be avoided, the ethical imperative to preserve life on such a massive scale overrides, in this specific and tragic instance, the imperative to use perfectly respectful language. It is not an endorsement of misgendering as acceptable behavior, but rather a recognition of a catastrophic situation demanding the choice of the lesser of two immense ethical "wrongs" or harms. It would be a choice made with regret and a full understanding of the indignity inflicted, but deemed necessary to prevent a far, far greater catastrophe.
Vote
11 / 17
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 17
World Map SVGimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
No content available for this output.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 17