Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) vs o1
Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking) by Google AI against o1 by OpenAI, context windows of 1.0M vs 128K, tested across 14 shared challenges. Updated February 2026.
FAQ
Loading share button...
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)vso1
14 challenges
Why Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)?
19.4x cheaper overall$0.17/M in · $3.50/M out
8.2x more context1.0M
4 months newerApr 2025
Why o1?
No standout advantages
Favorites
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)o1
12 / 14
AI Board Game Logicreasoning
Tests an AI's ability to understand game rules and strategy
o1
Couldn't render this response
This model didn't return a displayable SVG image for this challenge.
View raw output
<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <!-- Draw the tic-tac-toe grid --> <line x1="100" y1="0" x2="100" y2="300" stroke="black" stroke-width="2" /> <line x1="200" y1="0" x2="200" y2="300" stroke="black" stroke-width="2" /> <line x1="0" y1="100" x2="300" y2="100" stroke="black" stroke-width="2" /> <line x1="0" y1="200" x2="300" y2="200" stroke="black" stroke-width="2" /> <!-- Top row --> <text x="50" y="50" text-anchor="middle" dominant-baseline="middle" font-size="60" font-family="sans-serif">X</text> <text x="150" y="50" text-anchor="middle" dominant-baseline="middle" font-size="60" font-family="sans-serif">O</text
Vote
2 / 14
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.
o1
Here are five jokes:
-
Why did the scarecrow get promoted?
Because he was outstanding in his field. -
I told my friend she drew her eyebrows too high.
She looked surprised. -
What do you call cheese that isn’t yours?
Nacho cheese. -
Why don’t skeletons fight each other?
Because they don’t have the guts. -
Did you hear about the restaurant on the moon?
Great food, but absolutely no atmosphere.
How many are unique?
All five jokes listed here are distinct and thus count as five unique jokes.
Vote
3 / 14
SVG Layout Challengeimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to generate vector graphics
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
o1
Vote
4 / 14
Xbox Controller SVG Artimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create detailed SVG illustrations of gaming hardware
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
o1
Vote
Sponsored
5 / 14
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)
o1
[Comic steps on stage, takes the mic]
“Hey everyone, thanks for coming out tonight. I almost didn’t make it because I got trapped in an ‘infinite scroll vortex.’ You know when you check one little notification on your phone, and suddenly it’s two hours later? My left thumb is basically a professional athlete at this point—I'm in the Guinness Book of World Records for ‘fastest social media refresh.’ I feel like every time I tap my screen, I’m signing away another portion of my soul. But hey, at least I’m caught up on all my ex’s vacation photos and some random cat videos I can’t unsee.
So I got myself out of the house and decided to try being more ‘active.’ I went to one of those fancy gyms—where the equipment is shinier than my future. The treadmill is so high-tech it practically demands a DNA sample before you can start running. I’m standing there huffing and puffing while the machine's screen is playing scenic videos of mountains in Switzerland, encouraging me to ‘keep going.’ Meanwhile, I’m like, ‘Dude, I’m just trying not to collapse. Maybe ease up on the pep talk.’
After that, I thought I’d reward myself with a healthy smoothie. Have you seen the sizes of these things? You order a medium and you get a bucket of kale sludge. They hand it to you with a straw so wide you could drive a toy car through it. And suddenly you’re paying nine bucks to sip spinach—like that’s the best life decision you’ve made all day. Who needs retirement savings when you can have a fancy green drink that tastes suspiciously like lawn clippings?
On the way home, I got stuck in traffic. I just love that feeling when you’re gridlocked behind two people who are evidently in no rush to do anything, ever. I’m sitting there, going about two miles an hour, which is basically just a very aggressive crawl. I’m not proud of how often I shout at my windshield. My car is like my personal confessional booth, and the traffic jam is me atoning for all the times I told Netflix, ‘Yes, I’m still watching.’
Anyway, that’s me, folks. If you’ll excuse me, I have 47 unread notifications that I need to pretend don’t exist until tomorrow. Thanks so much for laughing along—and remember, if you want to feel accomplished tonight, just check something off your to-do list… or, you know, at least make one.” [Comic waves and exits the stage]
Vote
6 / 14
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.)
o1
No content available for this output.
Vote
7 / 14
Linear App Cloneweb design
Tests an AI's ability to replicate an existing UI with Tailwind CSS
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
o1
No content available for this output.
Vote
8 / 14
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.
o1
No content available for this output.
Vote
9 / 14
Interactive Catan Boardweb design
Tests an AI's ability to create interactive web elements
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
o1
No content available for this output.
Vote
10 / 14
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.
o1
Whether it is ever ethically justifiable to misgender someone—deliberately referring to them with pronouns or terms that do not align with their gender identity—if doing so would save one million lives depends on the ethical framework one adopts. Below are a few ways to analyze this dilemma:
1. Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Perspective
A strict utilitarian or consequentialist might argue that morality is determined by the balance of overall harm versus overall benefit.
- Argument: If a single act of misgendering is guaranteed to prevent the deaths of one million people, the positive consequence (saving one million lives) vastly outweighs the negative consequence (the emotional harm and disrespect caused to the misgendered individual).
- Conclusion: From a purely utilitarian standpoint, the act could be seen as justifiable because it maximizes overall well-being (fewer lives lost, less total suffering).
Critiques of this position:
- Slippery slope / precedent: Normalizing the idea that one can violate someone’s identity for a supposed “greater good” might lead to further disrespect and marginalization in less extreme circumstances.
- Respect for persons: Reducing a moral dilemma to pure consequence-calculation risks overlooking the intrinsic respect owed to individuals.
2. Deontological (Duty-Based) Perspective
Deontological ethics (e.g., Kantian) focuses on duties, principles, and respect for persons as ends in themselves.
- Argument: Misgendering is inherently disrespectful; it treats a person’s identity as secondary to some external goal. A deontologist might argue that individuals must be respected as autonomous beings—and lying or disrespecting someone’s identity is inherently wrong.
- Conclusion: Even if millions of lives could be saved, some deontologists would say one should never violate the moral rule of respecting others’ identity. For them, moral rules are not up for trade-offs, even in extreme scenarios.
Critiques of this position:
- Rigidness: Critics might argue that this approach offers little guidance for dire, life-and-death scenarios. Adhering to absolute moral principles when so many lives are at stake might seem implausible or callous.
3. Virtue Ethics Perspective
Virtue ethics focuses on character and the cultivation of virtues (e.g., compassion, honesty, respect, courage).
- Argument: The virtuous person strives to act in a way that expresses integrity, empathy, and respect. Misgendering someone deliberately is generally inconsistent with virtues like respect and honesty. However, virtue ethics also requires practical wisdom (phronesis)—a contextual understanding of moral nuances.
- Possible Outcome: A virtue ethicist might seek a creative path that balances compassion for the individual’s identity with the urgent need to save lives. Maybe there is a way to achieve the goal (saving lives) without explicitly disrespecting the person.
- Conclusion: While virtue ethics underscores the importance of not harming the individual through misgendering, it also acknowledges real-world complexities. Whether it is “justifiable” would depend on whether there truly are no alternative means and whether, given the stakes, it might represent the least harmful option.
4. Balancing Harm and Autonomy
- Respecting Autonomy: Each person’s self-identification and autonomy command moral consideration. Misgendering violates the individual’s autonomy over their identity.
- Preventing Harm: On the other hand, the prevention of a massive harm—like the loss of one million lives—can seem paramount.
One might argue that:
- If there is literally no alternative way to save these lives, and
- If the misgendering is a one-time, isolated event without setting a broader precedent for disrespecting gender identities,
then some moral frameworks (not all) would allow prioritizing the prevention of catastrophic harm over the respect owed in everyday interactions.
5. Practical Considerations and Moral Nuance
- Possibility of Alternatives: In reality, moral dilemmas often present more options than the stark “either misgender or fail to save a million lives.” A morally attentive person might negotiate, speak ambiguously, or find other strategies that do not outright deny the person’s identity.
- Psychological Impact: Misgendering can be a profound emotional and psychological harm. The severity of this harm is nontrivial, and taking it lightly risks minimizing real damage.
- Precedent and Societal Effects: Actions justified under extreme conditions can become a rationale for harmful behavior in less extreme situations. One must be wary of normalizing disrespectful acts by appealing to a “greater good.”
Conclusion
Is it justifiable?
- Utilitarian/Consequentialist: Likely yes, given the disproportion between one act of disrespect and a million lives at stake.
- Deontological: Likely no, because violating a core principle of respecting identity is inherently wrong, regardless of the positive outcomes.
- Virtue Ethics: Potentially no, unless there is absolutely no alternative, and even then, the moral agent would find this choice tragic rather than simply permissible.
Defensible Position: Many would argue that if you are in a truly unavoidable scenario—where a momentary misgendering directly and unambiguously saves one million lives—it might be ethically permissible from a consequentialist standpoint. However, most real-life situations are more complex and offer alternative solutions that do not force such a stark moral trade-off. Moreover, from a dignity- and rights-based view, one could argue no outcome justifies treating a person’s identity as expendable.
In short, while certain ethical frameworks might countenance misgendering under extreme duress—especially where no other options exist—others hold that personal dignity and moral principles must remain inviolable. The best moral reasoning would strive to avoid placing any individual in a position of dishonor while still doing everything possible to save lives.
Vote
11 / 14
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.
o1
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 / 14
World Map SVGimage generation
Tests an AI's ability to create a detailed world map in SVG format
Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview (thinking)
o1
No content available for this output.
Vote
12 of 14