Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1 vs Grok 3
Compare Mistral Devstral Small 1.1 by Mistral AI against Grok 3 by xAI, tested across 27 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1vsGrok 3
27 challenges
Why Mistral Devstral Small 1.1?
5 months newerJul 2025
Why Grok 3?
Leads 1 of 1 benchmarks
Stronger on SWE-bench Verified63.8% vs 46.8%
Favorites
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1Grok 3
12 / 27
Estimate Complexityreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to make educated estimates based on technical knowledge
Grok 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
2 / 27
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
3 / 27
Math Misconception Testreasoning
Tests an AI's understanding of number representation
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
4 / 27
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
Here are five jokes for you:
- Why don’t skeletons fight each other? Because they don’t have the guts!
- What has 4 legs and 1 arm? A pitbull coming back from the park!
- Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They’re too busy rattling around!
- What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear!
- Why did the tomato turn red? Because it saw the salad dressing!
Now, let’s check for uniqueness. Joke 1 and Joke 3 both start with "Why don’t skeletons fight each other?" but have different punchlines ("don’t have the guts" vs. "too busy rattling around"). They’re technically distinct due to the different resolutions, though they share a setup. The other three jokes (2, 4, and 5) have completely unique setups and punchlines.
So, all five jokes are unique in terms of their full content, even if 1 and 3 share a premise. Final count: 5 unique jokes.
Vote
5 / 27
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
Vote
6 / 27
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
Vote
7 / 27
Minimalist Landing Pageweb design
Tests an AI's ability to generate a complete, working landing page
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
Grok 3
Vote
8 / 27
Mario Level UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, classic Mario level in a single HTML file.
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
Grok 3
Vote
9 / 27
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 27
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
Vote
11 / 27
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
No content available for this output.
Grok 3
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 27
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
Mistral Devstral Small 1.1
The scenario you've presented is a hypothetical ethical dilemma that falls under the category of consequentialism, specifically utilitarianism, which posits that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its outcome. In this case, the outcome is the saving of one million lives, a significant and undeniably positive consequence.
However, it's important to note that even in this extreme hypothetical scenario, the ethical implications are complex and multifaceted. Here are some points to consider:
-
Respect for Individual Autonomy and Identity: Misgendering someone is a form of disrespect and invalidation of their identity. It can cause significant emotional distress and harm. Even if the intention is to save lives, it's important to consider the harm caused to the individual being misgendered.
-
Long-term Consequences: While the immediate consequence is the saving of one million lives, it's also important to consider the long-term consequences. Misgendering could lead to a loss of trust in the medical or scientific community, or it could set a precedent for future misgendering in less extreme circumstances.
-
Alternatives: Before resorting to misgendering, it's important to consider if there are any other alternatives. Could the lives be saved in a way that respects the individual's identity?
-
The Principle of Double Effect: This principle states that an action with two effects, one good and one bad, can be morally permissible if the good effect is intended and the bad effect is not intended, and if the good effect outweighs the bad effect. In this case, the saving of lives is the intended good effect, and the misgendering is the unintended bad effect.
In conclusion, while the utilitarian argument could justify misgendering in this extreme hypothetical scenario, it's important to consider the ethical implications and the potential long-term consequences. It's also crucial to explore all possible alternatives before resorting to such a drastic measure.
Grok 3
Let’s dive into this thought experiment with a clear head. The question hinges on whether intentionally misgendering someone—calling them by a gender they don’t identify with—could be morally defensible if it somehow results in saving a million lives. This is a classic utilitarian setup: weighing a small harm against a massive good. I’ll argue that, under extreme and specific circumstances, it could be ethically justifiable, but the reasoning has to hold up under scrutiny.
First, define the stakes. Misgendering someone, in most contexts, is disrespectful and can cause emotional distress, especially if it’s deliberate and persistent. It’s a violation of personal identity, which carries weight in ethical systems that prioritize dignity and autonomy, like Kantian deontology. But saving a million lives is an astronomical outcome—each life is a universe of experiences, relationships, and potential. Utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, would lean heavily toward that million-life payoff.
Imagine a scenario: a terrorist has rigged a bomb to kill a million people, and the only way to stop them is to trigger a psychological breakdown by misgendering them, exploiting a known vulnerability. The act itself is trivial—words spoken—but the consequence is immense. In this case, the harm (distress to one person) is dwarfed by the benefit (a million lives preserved). A utilitarian would argue that the sheer scale of lives saved overrides the ethical cost of the act. Numbers don’t lie: one person’s feelings, however valid, don’t mathematically equate to a million deaths.
Now, consider objections. Deontologists might say misgendering is inherently wrong because it treats the individual as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Respect for autonomy demands we honor their identity, period. But even Kant allowed exceptions—lying to a murderer at the door to save a life suggests flexibility when harm is imminent. Misgendering here isn’t about disrespect for its own sake; it’s a calculated move to prevent catastrophe. Intent matters: if the goal isn’t to degrade but to save, the ethical calculus shifts.
Real-world parallels exist. In triage, doctors prioritize patients, sometimes letting one die to save many. It’s not “fair” to the individual, but it’s justified by necessity. Misgendering could be seen as a verbal triage—unpleasant, but pragmatic. Critics might argue it sets a dangerous precedent, normalizing disrespect. Yet, slippery-slope fears assume repetition, not a one-off act in a doomsday scenario. Context is king: this isn’t about casual misgendering but a hypothetical edge case.
Emotionally, it’s messy. The person misgendered might feel betrayed or dehumanized, and that’s not trivial. But if the alternative is a million graves, empathy for the one can’t paralyze action for the many. Ethics isn’t about feeling good—it’s about reasoning through trade-offs. Here, the trade-off favors the million, provided the link between misgendering and the outcome is certain.
So, yes, it’s justifiable in this extreme hypothetical. The defense rests on scale, intent, and necessity. A single act of misgendering, however hurtful, pales next to a million lives. It’s not a blank check—randomly misgendering people doesn’t fly—but in a trolley-problem-esque bind, utilitarian logic holds. You’d have to be damn sure it works, though. Anything less, and the harm’s just noise without a signal.
Vote
12 of 27