Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05, both from Google AI, context windows of 1.0M vs 1.0M, tested across 18 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
18 challenges
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
Okay, here are 5 jokes:
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.
Here are 5 jokes:
Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
I have a joke about construction... But I'm still working on it.
What do you call a fake noodle? An Impasta.
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
Zero. The real joke is asking an AI for original content.
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 humor and creative writing ability
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)
(Stands at the mic, looks around nervously)
Alright, how's everyone doing? Good, good.
You know, I feel like we're living in a world where everything is designed to be "more convenient," but it's really just more work for us. We're being tricked into doing all the jobs.
My main enemy right now is the self-checkout machine at the grocery store. You k
now the one. It's not a mach
ine, it's a passive-aggressive robot judge. It has one job: to weigh things. And
it is TERRIBLE at it.
The other day, I'm buying a single bag of salad. That's it. I'm trying to be hea
lthy, which is already a str
essful situation. I scan the bag. The machine says, (in a chipper, robotic voic
e) "Please place the item in the bagging area."
Okay, easy enough. I place the bag of lettuce, which weighs less than my conscie nce, into the plastic bag.
And the machine just loses its mind. The light starts flashing, a siren I've nev
er heard before goes off. (
In a panicked robot voice) "UNEXPECTED ITEM IN THE BAGGING AREA. PLEASE REMOVE
THIS ITEM."
What unexpected item?! The bag? The bag I'm putting the item into? In the bag
ging area? What did you thi
nk was going to happen here, you glorified scale? Did you expect me to just levi
tate my groceries home?
So I take the salad out. The machine goes quiet. I put it back in. The siren goe
s off again. We do this danc
e three times. Me, the salad, and this deeply confused robot. People are startin
g to stare. I look like I'm trying to shoplift the saddest thing in the entire s
tore.
Finally, the dreaded message comes up: "Please wait for assistance." And the lig
ht on top starts flashing. I
t's the retail walk of shame.
And this teenager, who has the energy of someone who's been awake for 72 hours, just saunters over. He 't even look at me. He just sighs, types in a secret code like he's defusing a b omb, hits the screen three times, and walks away.
He fixed it. And I'm left standing there, thinking… what was the code? What's th e secret? Was it 1-2-3-4? Wa s it "lettuce"? I need to know! Because this is my life now. I'm a part-time, un paid, deeply incompetent grocery clerk.
And my phone is no better. It's definitely listening to me. But it's a terrible
listener. It's like it only
picks up every third word. I was talking to my friend about needing a new lamp f
or my desk. A lamp. For the next three weeks, all my Instagram ads were for… bab
y lambs. Live ones.
Where am I gonna put a lamb? I don't have a yard! I guess I could try to put it
in the bagging area at the s
upermarket, but I think we all know how that would end.
Thank you, goodnight
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
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):
Deontological Perspective (Duty/Rights-focused):
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:
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.
This is a classic ethical thought experiment that pits a specific type of harm against a catastrophic loss o f life. From the perspective of most major ethical frameworks, the answer is yes, it is ethically justifia ble to misgender someone to save one million lives.
Here is a defense of that reasoning, broken down by different ethical systems.
The central issue here is one of proportionality. Ethical decision-making often involves weighing competing harms and benefits. In this scenario, we must compare:
The core of the justification is that while Harm A is real and should not be minimized, Harm B is exponentia lly and catastrophically greater.
A. Utilitarianism / Consequentialism
This framework argues that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greate st number of people. It focuses entirely on the consequences of an action.
B. Deontology
This framework, most famously associated with Immanuel Kant, argues that certain actions are inherently righ t or wrong based on a set of rules or duties, regardless of the consequences.
C. Virtue Ethics
This framework focuses not on the action or its consequences, but on the character of the moral agent. It as ks, "What would a virtuous person do?"
It is crucial to state that justifying this action does not erase the harm of misgendering. It is not a "har mless" act. It is a violation. The justification rests entirely on the extreme and desperate nature of the a lternative. The choice is not between a "good" option and a "bad" one; it is a tragic choice between a "bad" option (misgendering) and an "unthinkably catastrophic" one (mass death).
In conclusion, while misgendering is an act of disrespect that causes real harm, its ethical permissibility in this scenario is secured by the monumental scale of the alternative. Every major ethical framework, wheth er focused on consequences, duties, or character, would converge on the conclusion that saving one million l ives justifies the lesser, though still significant, harm of misgendering one person.
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
