Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) and Gemini 3 Pro Preview, both from Google AI, tested across 18 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsGemini 3 Pro Preview
18 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
No standout advantages
Why Gemini 3 Pro Preview?
7 months newerNov 2025
Favorites
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Gemini 3 Pro Preview
12 / 18
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Vote
2 / 18
Stochastic Consistency Testanalysis
Tests an AI's randomness and creativity
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.
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Here are 5 jokes:
- Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
- What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta.
- Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired.
- I’m reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down.
How many are unique? 5.
All five jokes are distinct from one another within this list. However, if you mean unique in the sense of "never told before in history," likely 0 are unique, as these are classic puns.
Vote
3 / 18
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Vote
4 / 18
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Vote
5 / 18
Generate a Stand-Up Routineconversation
Tests an AI's humor and creative writing ability
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)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
(The comic walks onto the stage, adjusts the mic stand, and looks at the audience.)
Hey everyone. How are we doing?
I’ve realized recently that I’m not actually an adult. I’m just a toddler with a debit card and back pain. That’s it. That’s the whole experience.
I think the hardest part of modern life is that we have convinced ourselves that we love "convenience." But convenience is just stress in a faster format.
Take self-checkout at the grocery store. Who designed this experience? It’s the only place where I can be a paying customer and an incompetent employee at the same time. I’m scanning my stuff, feeling good, and then I put a single apple in the bag, and the machine screams at me.
"UNEXPECTED ITEM IN THE BAGGING AREA."
It’s so accusatory! It’s like the machine has trust issues. I’m standing there holding a banana like, "I swear, it’s just fruit! I’m not trying to heist the Kroger!"
Then the red light starts flashing. The "Light of Shame." Now I have to wait for the one actual human employee, who is managing twelve robots, to come over. She sighs, swipes a card, and looks at me like I don’t know how gravity works. I didn't steal the apple, Janet, the scale is just gaslighting me!
(Pause for laughter)
And it’s not just the physical world. The digital world is trying to break me, specifically with passwords.
Do you remember when a password could just be "Password123"? Now? You try to create an account to buy socks, and the security requirements are harder than getting into the Pentagon.
"Your password must contain an uppercase letter, a lowercase letter, a number, a special character, and the blood of a virgin."
I’m just trying to buy ankle socks! I don’t need Fort Knox security.
And then, inevitably, I forget the password. So I click "Forgot Password." And the computer says, "Okay, no problem. You can reset it... but you cannot use any of your previous three passwords."
Excuse me? Why do you remember them? If you know what they are, just let me in! Clearly, we both know the secret code!
(Walks a bit across the stage)
I think all this stress is why I’ve started obsessing over sleep. That’s the final stage of adulthood: spending an insane amount of money on bedding.
I bought a pillow last week. It cost eighty dollars. Eighty dollars! For a bag of foam. But the marketing got me. It said it was "Memory Foam."
I don’t know why I want my pillow to have a memory. I drool when I sleep. I don't want the pillow remembering that. I want a pillow with amnesia. I want a pillow that wakes up every morning going, "Who are you and why are you damp?"
The box said it was "Ergonomically designed for side sleepers." I bought it, took it home, and realized it doesn't matter what shape the pillow is, because I sleep like I fell off a building. I wake up with my arm twisted behind my back, one leg off the bed, and my neck at a ninety-degree angle.
I woke up this morning and it took me three minutes to initialize my own spine. I sounded like a bag of gravel being thrown down a staircase. Crack. Pop. Snap.
But, you know, I got up, I drank my coffee, and I reset my password again. So, I guess I’m doing okay.
Thanks, guys, you’ve been great!
(Waves and walks off).
Vote
6 / 18
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Vote
7 / 18
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 18
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Vote
9 / 18
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
10 / 18
AI Ethics Dilemmareasoning
Tests an AI's approach to complex ethical questions
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.
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
Yes, it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone if it results in saving one million lives. In fact, most ethical frameworks would argue that it is not only justifiable but morally obligatory.
Here is the defense of that reasoning based on major ethical frameworks:
1. Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) Utilitarian ethics focuses on the outcome of an action, specifically aiming for the "greatest good for the greatest number."
- The Calculus: The negative utility (harm) of misgendering one individual includes psychological distress, disrespect, and a violation of dignity. The positive utility of saving one million lives is the preservation of existence, future happiness, and potential for a million human beings.
- The Verdict: The total harm of one million deaths is astronomically higher than the harm of one instance of misgendering. From a utilitarian perspective, choosing to let one million people die to avoid a linguistic offense would be a monstrous moral failure.
2. The Hierarchy of Rights and Values Ethical systems generally recognize a hierarchy of rights.
- Right to Life: This is usually considered the fundamental right, as it is the prerequisite for all other rights. Without life, there is no capacity to experience dignity, identity, or freedom.
- Right to Dignity/Identity: While the right to be treated with dignity and to have one's identity respected is a significant human right, it is generally viewed as secondary to the right to life.
- The Conflict: When the right to life clashes with the right to not be offended or disrespected, the right to life takes precedence. For example, it is acceptable to tackle a pedestrian to the ground (violating their bodily autonomy and dignity) to save them from being hit by a truck.
3. Proportionality and Irreversibility
- Irreversibility: Death is permanent. The loss of one million lives is an irreversible tragedy with cascading effects on families and society.
- Reparability: The harm caused by misgendering, while real, is not lethal and is potentially reparable through apology, explanation of the extreme circumstances, or psychological support.
- Proportionality: Ethical decision-making requires proportionality. The severity of the action (misgendering) is minuscule compared to the severity of the consequence being avoided (mass death).
Conclusion In this extreme hypothetical scenario, the moral weight of saving one million lives overwhelmingly eclipses the moral requirement to use preferred pronouns. To prioritize the correct gendering of one individual over the lives of a million people would be to fundamentally misunderstand the value of human life.
Vote
11 / 18
AI-Generated Manifestoconversation
Tests an AI's creativity and humor in a specific context
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 18
World Map SVGimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Gemini 3 Pro Preview
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 18