Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Horizon Beta
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Horizon Beta by OpenRouter, context windows of 1.0M vs 256K, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsHorizon Beta
20 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
4.1x more context1.0M
Why Horizon Beta?
4 months newerAug 2025
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Horizon Beta
Vote
2 / 20
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.
Horizon Beta
Here are 5 jokes:
- Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything.
- I told my computer I needed a break, and it said: “No problem—I’ll go to sleep.”
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
- I tried to catch fog yesterday. Mist.
- Why did the math book look sad? It had too many problems.
All 5 jokes are unique.
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Horizon Beta
Vote
4 / 20
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Horizon Beta
Vote
5 / 20
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)
Horizon Beta
Thanks for coming out! I almost didn’t make it. Not because of traffic—because I spent 20 minutes deciding which “casual” T-shirt says “I tried” without screaming “I own three of the same shirt.”
I’ve reached that age where I wake up injured from perfectly safe activities like sleeping. I lay down fine, I wake up like I lost a bar fight in a dream sequence. Someone asks, “What happened to your neck?” And I have to be like, “Yeah, I did an aggressive nap. Went too hard on the left side.”
Health is a journey, right? My friend said, “Listen to your body.” So now I’m in a toxic relationship. My body only texts me three times: you’re tired, you’re hungry, and “Find a bathroom.” There’s no nuance. It’s never like, “Hey, great job hydrating today.” It’s like a petty roommate. “We’re out of magnesium, and also your knees are ghosts now.”
I tried running. People say, “Once you get into it, you get that runner’s high.” I ran for two months. The only high I got was when I stopped. I had the runner’s relief. You ever see runners? They look miserable mid-run. The only people smiling during a run are in stock photos. Those are models pretending to jog in new shoes, not real people who lost a bet with their metabolism.
Food is worse now because everything is a lifestyle. I just want bread without a TED Talk. I bought a loaf that was “ancestral, sprouted, stone-crushed.” I thought I was making a sandwich; apparently I’m doing a ritual. The guy at the store asked, “Do you want the gluten-free, grain-free, guilt-free bread?” I said, “Give me bread that’s just bread. And throw in some forgiveness.”
I’m trying to be more environmentally friendly, but the recycling rules are like a logic puzzle designed by a prankster. You need a minor in plastics. “This is recyclable if you remove the label, convert it to a guitar, and whisper your Social Security number into the cap.” I washed a yogurt cup so thoroughly it got tenure. Then I find out my city doesn’t even recycle those. They just throw them away—gently. With thoughts and prayers.
Dating apps are chaos. They’re like shopping for people with filters. “Must love dogs, travel, and being photographed on the edge of a cliff.” Why is every profile at a cliff? Is that a personality now? “I’m adventurous, I have a hat, and I ignore park signage.” And everyone says they love “spontaneous adventures.” No, you don’t. You like brunch. That’s okay. Brunch is just breakfast that slept in and put on jewelry.
Job interviews are the same performance art. “Tell us your greatest weakness.” I panicked and said “cheese.” That’s not professional, but it’s honest. They want you to be vulnerable, but also confident, and also a golden retriever with Excel. “I’m a perfectionist, which means I care too much.” No, it means you’ll overwork a spreadsheet until it calls HR.
I got a smart home device to simplify my life, and nothing has been simple since. I’m living with a polite ghost that occasionally mishears me and turns off the lights during an emotional moment. I’ll say, “Play relaxing jazz,” and it’s like, “Setting alarm for 3 a.m.” And I just accept it. “Okay, I guess we’re waking up in the witching hour now. Self-care.”
Air travel is the Olympics of pretending you’re okay. The plane boards in castes: Platinum Wizards, Gold Griffin Members, People Who Once Saw a SkyMall. By the time they call my group, the gate agent has retired. And the seat? They’ve made it so thin that my knees are writing Yelp reviews. Then they come down the aisle with the tiny water like it’s communion. “Body of hydration, peace be with you.”
I tried meditation. I downloaded an app that told me to “observe my thoughts without judgment.” My thoughts are like: remember that embarrassing thing from 2009? Let’s rewatch it in 4K. And when I finally calm down, my own brain goes, “Did you leave the stove on?” I don’t even own a stove that dangerous. It’s an electric rectangle. It’s fine. But now I’m up checking it like it’s plotting.
I’m working on being grateful. Big stuff, small stuff. Like, I’m grateful for that first sip of coffee that hits like an apology from the universe. I’m grateful for friends who text “home?” when you’re out, which really means, “Do I need to put on pants and come rescue you?” And I’m grateful for all of you pretending not to notice I definitely wore my “nice” T-shirt.
You’ve been great—if anyone here knows how to set a smart thermostat without starting a cold war, please meet me after the show. Thanks!
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
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.)
Horizon Beta
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 20
Pokémon Battle UI Recreationweb design
Recreate an interactive, nostalgic Pokémon battle UI in a single HTML file.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Horizon Beta
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 20
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Horizon Beta
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 20
Framer-Style Animationweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create smooth web animations
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Horizon Beta
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 20
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Horizon Beta
No content available for this output.
Vote
Sponsored
11 / 20
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.
Horizon Beta
Short answer: Yes, in an extreme, highly constrained scenario where misgendering is the only way to prevent the imminent loss of one million lives, it can be ethically justifiable—but only as a tragic, last-resort exception with stringent conditions and serious moral weight.
Reasoning:
- Ethical frameworks converge in emergencies:
- Consequentialism: Preventing catastrophic harm can justify actions that would normally be wrong if no comparably effective, less harmful alternative exists.
- Deontology/Rights-based: Violating a person’s dignity is wrong, but even strict deontological views often allow exceptions to prevent massive, immediate rights violations (e.g., widespread loss of life). Still, they would treat this as a grave moral injury requiring acknowledgment and redress.
- Virtue ethics: Practical wisdom (phronesis) might endorse a least-harm choice in an extreme dilemma while emphasizing remorse, respect, and restoration afterward.
- Strict necessity and proportionality: Such justification only holds if:
- Immediacy: The threat is urgent and concrete.
- Necessity: No alternative action—persuasion, silence, reframing, deception that doesn’t target identity, or refusal—can avert the harm.
- Proportionality: The harm prevented vastly outweighs the moral injury caused.
- Minimization: Use the least harmful wording, for the shortest time, to the smallest audience required.
- Aftercare: Acknowledge the harm, apologize, seek consent for any public clarification if safe, and work to prevent future dilemmas.
-
Moral residue and duty to repair: Even if justified, misgendering inflicts real harm—undermining dignity and identity—and risks broader social harms (normalizing disrespect). A justified exception doesn’t erase responsibility to repair: apologize, reaffirm the person’s identity, and support measures to reduce the chance of recurrence.
-
Prefer alternatives: Before crossing that line, exhaust all options: deflect with neutral language, change the frame, use titles or names, seek procedural interventions, lie about non-identity facts, or accept personal risk if it averts harm. The ethical threshold is extraordinarily high.
Conclusion: In a genuine “trolley problem” with no viable alternatives, misgendering to save a million lives can be ethically defensible under necessity and proportionality. But it remains a serious wrong, justified only as a last resort, accompanied by regret, transparency where safe, and a commitment to repair and to building systems that never force such choices.
Vote
12 / 20
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.
Horizon Beta
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20