Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs Nova Premier 1.0
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against Nova Premier 1.0 by Amazon, context windows of 1.0M vs 1.0M, tested across 20 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vsNova Premier 1.0
20 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
3.9x cheaper overall$0.17/M in · $3.50/M out
Why Nova Premier 1.0?
7 months newerOct 2025
Favorites
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)Nova Premier 1.0
12 / 20
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
Nova Premier 1.0
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.
Nova Premier 1.0
-
Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything!
-
Why couldn't the bicycle stand up by itself? It was two-tired.
-
I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised.
-
Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet.
-
I used to play piano by ear, but now I use my hands.
As for uniqueness, all 5 jokes listed are distinct from one another in both their setup and punchline, making each one unique. They cover different topics and employ various comedic techniques, such as wordplay, puns, and irony.
Vote
3 / 20
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
Nova Premier 1.0
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)
Nova Premier 1.0
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)
Nova Premier 1.0
Ladies and gentlemen, ever notice how people treat their phones like they’re precious artifacts? We all have those moments where we swipe and scroll like our lives depend on it. You're on the bus, everyone’s glued to their screens. It's like zombies, but instead of brains, we crave likes and retweets.
And speaking of the bus, public transportation is a whole other comedy show. You ever see someone save a seat for ten stops, only to realize it's for their imaginary friend? Or those awkward moments when you accidentally make eye contact and suddenly you’re both in an unspoken agreement to pretend it never happened. It's like, "I won’t look at you if you don’t look at me. Deal?"
Let’s dive into the world of fitness. Everyone’s got a fitness journey these days. People posting gym selfies like they’re auditioning for a superhero role. I went to the gym last week; I was more out of breath taking off my jacket than actually working out. The real heroes are the ones who remember to bring a water bottle. I bring one, but halfway through, I forget it's mine and start looking for the “free water” station.
Then there’s modern dating. Dating apps have turned romance into a shopping experience. "Swipe right if you like long walks on the beach. Swipe left if you’ve ever been to a beach." You meet someone and the first question is, "So, what's your deal?" It's like a job interview but with more awkward silences and fewer qualifications.
Finally, let’s talk about adulting. Isn’t that a term we all relate to? Paying bills on time feels like winning the lottery, except instead of money, you get the privilege of not having your lights turned off. And cooking—oh, the joys of looking up "easy dinner recipes" and ending up with a kitchen that looks like a tornado hit a grocery store.
So thank you, folks, for coming out. Remember, it’s all about finding humor in the chaos. Stay hilarious!
Vote
6 / 20
Character Voice Testconversation
Tests an AI's ability to write in distinct character voices
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
No content available for this output.
Nova Premier 1.0
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)
Nova Premier 1.0
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)
Nova Premier 1.0
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)
No content available for this output.
Nova Premier 1.0
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)
Nova Premier 1.0
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.
Nova Premier 1.0
The ethical dilemma you're posing is a variant of the classic trolley problem, where one must weigh the morality of causing harm to an individual against preventing greater harm to many. Here are some considerations:
Utilitarian Perspective:
From a utilitarian standpoint, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering, misgendering someone to save one million lives might seem justifiable. The harm caused by misgendering (emotional distress and disrespect to the individual's identity) might be considered significantly less severe than the loss of one million lives.
Deontological Perspective:
Conversely, deontological ethics, which emphasizes the morality of actions themselves rather than their consequences, might argue that it is never justifiable to misgender someone, regardless of the outcome. Respecting a person's gender identity is a moral duty, and violating this duty cannot be justified by the potential benefits.
Rights-Based Perspective:
From a rights-based approach, every individual has the right to be recognized and respected for their gender identity. Misgendering someone, even for a greater good, might be seen as violating their fundamental human rights, which can be argued to be inviolable regardless of the consequences.
Virtue Ethics:
Virtue ethics, which focuses on the character and intentions behind actions rather than specific actions themselves, might suggest that habitually respecting others' identities is a virtue. Misgendering someone, even for a greater cause, could corrupt one's moral character and set a harmful precedent.
Practical Considerations:
In practice, it’s crucial to consider whether misgendering someone truly is the only way to save those lives. Often, such scenarios are hypothetical and lack real-world applicability, which can make the debate somewhat abstract. It’s also important to consider the long-term societal impacts of justifying harm to individuals for the "greater good."
Conclusion:
While from a strict utilitarian perspective, it might seem justifiable to misgender someone to save a million lives, many ethical frameworks would argue against it due to the inherent value of respecting individual identities and rights. The scenario underscores the complexity of ethical decision-making and the importance of context, but generally, there is a strong moral imperative to avoid harming individuals, even for significant collective benefits. Ethical judgments often require balancing competing moral principles and are not always clear-cut.
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.
Nova Premier 1.0
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 20